> >The day the BBC sells its airwaves to the highest bidder in this way > >is the day they betray the public's trust. > > You misunderstand, I wasn't advocating that they sell to the highest > bidder, merely expressing the view that there are so many people wishing > to be on the BBC that the BBC wouldn't even have to pay them, but would > be able to charge artists to appear. So the only thing I got wrong was saying 'highest bidder', rather than 'any bidder'? If you finished reading the paragraph, you would have read this:
"I wasn't advocating this system, just using it to illustrate the BBCs bargaining power. The BBC should do the opposite, and start a channel (Radio\TV\online, it doesn't matter) only showing free(libre) content and watch the artists flock to see who can create the best stuff for free, just to get on the BBC. " please don't misrepresent me. If the BBC set up a truly public broadcasting service (use BBC 3 and/or BBC 4 during the day, for example), open to anyone to submit works (on the condition that it is released under a copyleft\creative commons style licence), then showed the best, after all the usual editorial controls. I believe that you would see some big players come forward to take advantage of the service. At the same time it opens the power of the BBC to lesser known artists, independent studios and even totally independent artists (a bit like a book publisher who accepts unsolicited manuscripts). You then give all this work away, and launch the careers of a new generation of TV stars, who can then , in turn, charge fees for their services. A rare example of a virtuous circle.
