This is maybe going a bit off-topic for this list?
In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC?
It is very good question, and one that there was a lot of debate on in the run-up to the charter renewal fandango. I think three of the salient points with regard to direct IP broadcast without the BBC as a distributor are - you can get 8m people around the TV for a shared experience watching Strictly Come Dancing and Doctor Who, but there are few (if any) videos on YouTube with an aggregation of 8 million eyeballs on them - Inital funding for those programmes that independent production companies make on TV and radio (and within New media on web sites and software) comes from the Licence Fee. I don't know that you'd see the same level of commissioning if smaller independent producers had to find start-up cash for each programme they wanted to make - there are still more TV sets in the UK than broadband connections
I'm also concerned that the licence fee is used to support the BBC's net activities - it gives the BBC a huge advantage over other net companies who don't get public money to support their online ventures.
The DCMS online review found that to be the case in a couple of areas, which the BBC shut down. I guess it really comes down to the argument of whether people still think having bbc.co.uk as a digital on-ramp to the internet for people in the Uk is on the whole "a good thing". If using the iPlayer for free makes people more confident about downloading TV shows and watching them on their PC, and so go on to buy download content from Sky or Channel 4, then has that benefitted or distorted the market? Interestingly in my line of work at the moment, all my user testing says people love the idea of streaming music to their mobile phones, but don't try it because they are worried about the price. Now, if they had a free service to get them used to the concept, does that make them more or less likely to sign up to a subscription in the long term for a different service? all the best, martin http://www.currybet.net On 20/12/06, Josh at GoUK.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Thanks, Martin, for the explanation - appreciated and understood. In an era where we now have IP video delivery (and such delivery will increase in the future) then what is the point of the BBC? If Paul Jackson Productions can produce Red Dwarf IV, why not just sell it direct on the net (every production company can be its own IP driven "TV station") - what is the point of a BBC funded by the licence fee? At one time, the BBC was needed as a distributor of content, but do we still need the BBC to do that now if everyone has the ability to publish and distribute on their own? And of BBC programming - do we need it? Commercially there are plenty of ways to get similar (and sometimes identical/repeat) content to what the BBC provides. I am not trying to be objectionable or malicious: I am genuinely struggling to understand why the country needs a publicly funded broadcaster .... or at least one as big and as powerful as the BBC. I'm also concerned that the licence fee is used to support the BBC's net activities - it gives the BBC a huge advantage over other net companies who don't get public money to support their online ventures. Festive wishes Josh -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Belam Sent: Wednesday, December 20, 2006 9:13 AM To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer >> You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able to download BBC content for free. Hmm, I don't think I was saying that. What I'm saying is that when the BBC paid for Paul Jackson Productions to make series I, II, and III of Red Dwarf, the people who made it (not the BBC), the people who wrote the theme tune (not the BBC), the people who wrote the incidental music (not the BBC), and the people who wrote the script (not the BBC) will all have done so in the expectation of being able to exploit it commercially and earn additional money for their work through VHS and subsequent overseas sales. That is all set up contractually, and you can't just wave your hand and say that 18 years later, because we have IP delivery of video content now, it is OK for everybody in the world with an internet connection to download their work for free on the basis that you have paid your Licence Fee. The industry is moving slowly, and not probably in the direction we'd all hope. PACT have moved towards allowing on demand and catch-up downloads of independently produced programmes braodcast by the BBC, but in return they get greater control over the new media commercial exploitation of programming at a later date http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2006/06_june/02/newme dia.shtml It occurs to me I may have turned to the dark side since starting to work at Sony ;-) martin http://www.currybet.net On 19/12/06, Josh at GoUK.com <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > << if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions > of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global > market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell > copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be > feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at > source from the UK>> > > > You're saying the global market is more important than everyone being able > to download BBC content for free. > > But why shouldn't it be the other way round: that people's right to download > content for free (or at a fee direct from the BBC) be more important that > the global market? > > What is all this for: the global market of for people? In the end, the > "global market" just resells the stuff to the people - why should BBC > content be used to make other BBC content suppliers rich and make people pay > twice for their BBC content? > > I even wonder what the BBC is for in this digital era... ... ... > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Martin Belam > Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2006 11:41 AM > To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk > Subject: Re: [backstage] democracyplayer > > > What you're talking about is a global, industry issue with thousands of > > diverse stakeholders - from actors to cameramen. > > > > And you also have to realise that the rights are not just for the UK, > there are different rights frameworks across the globe. So, for > example, if the BBC started chucking out DRM free open format versions > of shows on the web, then it would have a massive impact on the global > market - BBC Worldwide has just signed a deal with Zudeo [1] to sell > copies of shows via P2P in the U.S. market [2] which wouldn't be > feasible if everyone could just download all BBC content for free at > source from the UK > > > martin > > http://currybet.net > > [1] http://www.zudeo.com/ > [2] http://www.zudeo.com/az-web/docs/PR20061219_BBC_Content_Partnership.pdf > > > On 19/12/06, Andrew Bowden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > "Dave Crossland" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > So that's one reason for the BBC to dump their own-brand > > > > NIH-syndrome > > > > iPlayer and start publishing video feeds you can consume in > > > > Democracy > > > > or whatever player you like the most, just like they > > > > publish RSS feeds of the news stories. > > > Absolutely. I like that idea a lot. > > > I think there would still be space for the BBC to do > > > something in this area just because they're the BBC. My mum > > > is probably not going to use Democracy but she probably would > > > use something from Auntie. > > > > > > Ultimately this is exactly the reason why the BBC (and other parties) do > > these things. Why does AOL have its own browser after all? If people > > didn't use it, they wouldn't create it. > > > > There is a world of between the kind of person that is on backstage and > > the "average" BBC user. > > > > I can still remember the first time I ever saw some user testing being > > performed (for those that don't know, it's where various people come in, > > sit at a computer and are asked to do various tasks, like try and find > > something on a website - for those who the testing is being done for, > > there is usually a two way mirror or video link so that you can watch > > what's going on). > > > > In one respect I found my first session incredibly frustrating (almost > > wanting to shout through the mirror "LOOK! IT'S THERE!") but in another > > way, it was extremely enlightening. It showed me a different side to > > the coin. The side where people don't distinguish between adverts and > > general website navigation. Where people can't see what you consider to > > be extremely obvious. > > > > > > Most importantly, it gave me a firm impression. That I should always, > > always, always remember... not everyone is like me. > > > > > > That's not to say that everything should be "dumbed down" to the lowest > > level - just that, for the BBC anyway, it's important to try and cater > > for everyone. > > > > > > > > Unfortunately, the Backstage community appears uninterested > > > in talking > > > > about Free Software media formats, and why they are important. (I > > > > don't know why this is.) > > > I am interested in talking about it. I know others here are. > > > But the trouble is we can't solve the problem. We need to get > > > the management thinking about the rights of the licence payer > > > instead of the rights of the talent. > > > > Actually I'd say that's only part of the problem because if it was just > > a BBC issue, you'd be almost there. > > > > What you're talking about is a global, industry issue with thousands of > > diverse stakeholders - from actors to cameramen. > > > > There is, for example, a certain, well known British actor who has > > decreed that some of his early work cannot be repeated on television. > > Everytime someone tries to negotiate repeat rights for those series, he > > is a voice that says no. As such the programmes can't be repeated. > > > > That's the way the industry has worked for decades. Trying to unpick it > > will take years. That's a guarentee. > > > > > > Anyway, back to those tedious admin tasks I'm supposed to be doing right > > now :) > > > > - > > 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > > - > 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > - > 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
