<< it doesn't mean that each of us, individually, has the *right* to unfettered access to whatever they (the BBC) produce.>>
I think that's a difficult position for the BBC to sustain. Maybe it's ok in terms of material the BBC produces, but not in terms of material the BBC broadcasts. Once a product is broadcast, the public do have unfettered access to it: they can record it on their videos, pvrs, dvds, or whatever means they choose. Once they have their own recording of it, they can watch it again and again to their heart's content: the BBC has absolutely no control over such content, unless it is going to broadcast it in a format which cannot be recorded by the public. Of course, the public cannot then copy and redistribute such content - although it is difficult to understand what is and isn't legal. Can someone record a BBC programme for later viewing and then watch it in the company of their friends; or even lend the video/dvd to their friends for them to view on their own videos/dvds? In the end, I don't see a way of controlling how people can access and share their own recordings. You can't lock up 60 million people for sharing copies of recorded material. And in the digital era it is just so much easier to share. The answer isn't in DRM or any kind of legislation. The answer is in providing content at a low price (the numbers will have to make the costs viable) where it is easier and cheaper for people to stream an episode of Dr Who for 20p than it is to get cadge a copy off a friend. <<It would be a huge financial gamble to do TV quality programming online only.>> Mmmm, think we're getting to an age where we need to reassess what "tv quality programming" is and what it means. We're not heading to a TV age, so the concept of TV programming will probably not be terribly relevant in a few years or so. It's a bit like when digital cameras came out: there were plenty of people who said digital cameras would never replace film ... my friend who owns a film processing company in Canada closed his last film lab a few weeks ago. There is only digital now, save for a few enthusiasts. Similar, I think, for the future of TV .... Like the variety halls of the Edwardian era, broadcast TV is yesterday's form of entertainment. <<I would hope the aim of the BBC in the future remains what it is now - public service broadcasting>> I'm not sure what PSB the BBC offers these days ... Dr Who, Strictly Come Dancing, running auditions for Andrew Lloyd Webber's musicals, Planet Earth, etc, etc, have no PSB credentials whatsoever. A small PSB for news and education is one thing, but turning out a lot of commercial style programming just doesn't make the BBC attractive to licence payers: most people would rather save the money they spend on the licence fee and use it to fund their own viewing preferences. We're not still in the 50s when broadcasting was relatively new and people could only get what the BBC provided. In this day and age, I find it difficult for the government to foist BBC programming and licence fees costs on a public which has much wider and relevant choice outside of the BBC. <<If they are to fund programming, they want to fund programmes that will make them money. As such certain programmes don't often get funded - take for example, costume dramas, religion, nature and so on. And then there's the risks the BBC can take - risks others wouldn't necessarily take. And the financial power it has, which allows it to do things often better. Would ITV have made Planet Earth? And if they had, would they have made it the same way?>> Really don't think it is sustainable to ask the public to fund costume dramas, religion or nature programmes. It really doesn't matter if ITV would or wouldn't have made Planet Earth - it isn't innovative programming (we've had a diet of similar programmes for years) and it offers nothing of any value to the wider public. Yes, some people might well love watching Planet Earth, but it isn't logical in a multimedia world to ask all the licence fee payers to support programming which a fair proportion of them don't want to watch. It would, in my opinion, be far better if the BBC got off the treadmill of nature programmes, costume dramas, soaps, etc and actually spent some time and effort developing new broadcast material. <<Maybe the BBC's size and scope will change in the future - who knows what will happen. Maybe everyone will just be happy watching US imports instead of homegrown programming. Maybe fewer and fewer people will care... Who knows.>> I think people are pretty bored with the BBCs programming - when did it last do anything innovative? Are the schedules today particularly any different to what they were 20 or 30 years ago? The BBC thinks it is the arbiter of taste and its ideas dominate the UK media. It would be a breath of fresh air for the BBC (if it has to be publicly funded) to completely rethink its entire output: rip up the schedules, bin every series currently in production, bring in some new thinkers, and come up with a media format that has some relevance to the 21st century. We get the same old formats with the same old presenters going round and round in meaningless circles as the champions of broadcast mediocrity. Comedy quizzes on radio and TV which have the same old people in slightly different guises. The country is full of talent, but the BBC sticks with a few tried and trust formats and personalities - where's the PSB value in that? I know some people will immediately say "what about the BBC's news coverage". But is there anything worse on TV? BBC's reporters are trained to the point of being clones. Close your eyes and it is impossible to know if you are listening to Michael Buerk in 1986 or Darren Jordan. Where is there any personality or individuality in BBC news delivery? Has there been any change in delivery format in the last XX years, save for scrolling news at the bottom of the screen? Sorry, will get off my soapbox now. Think the BBC is so insular in its thinking and so shallow in its production and performance pool, that it just can't see that the world is changing around it and that it wants to sit there in an Ivory Tower where it is forever 1956. If the BBC is to remain as a publicly funded PSB, then it really needs a huge internal shake up so that it can start to reflect the diverse cultural society that the UK is today and not just sit there smugly thinking that Aunty always knows best. WR Josh -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Andrew Bowden Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 10:07 AM To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [backstage] democracyplayer > Just because the BBC is tasked with serving the British > public, and just because it's generally moving in the > direction of making content more freely available, it doesn't > mean that each of us, individually, has the > *right* to unfettered access to whatever they produce. Increasingly far from it, it has to be said. An interesting case is the matter of programmes made by independent production companies - the BBC of course has a 25% quota for TV programmes made this way, with up to another 25% being split between inhouse and indies. Unfortunately for anyone with free-for-all plans, the Indies want to make money off their programmes. The fact that the licence fee has funded their creation irrelevant to that - for what the BBC pays, it gets various time restricted rights after which the Indie can commercially exploit the programme for its own financial gain. If nothing else, that model alone - which isn't going to go away by any means - is completely at odds with the notion of giving away non-DRM content to all and sundry. As usual, I'm going to be blunt and honest (and in a personal opinion obviously). We can all dream. But it's a LONG way away. If it ever happens. Frankly, this is not a simple issue. It's nowhere near a simple issue. And it's getting more complicated by the day. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
