> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 14:08, Andrew Bowden > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Much as I'm rather loathe to wade into this, there's an important > > question to ponder. > > If the alternative was this system did not exist and rights holders > > told broadcasters (for this is not just a BBC issue) that the > > broadcaster could not broadcast their content in HD on the > Freeview platform... > Those are _very_ big "if"s. enormous. > The content being talked about (that is, US imports, movies, > and the like), are > a) broadcast in other countries without this scheme or an equivalent > b) distributed widely prior to it hitting the UK > couple with that with the fact that the Strategy Review > recommends reducing the budget and amount of bought-in > programming, and you're not look at anything like the gaping > holes in the schedule which have been foretold.
The Strategy Review is irrelevant as this functionality could be used by ITV1 HD and Channel 4 HD. The BBC's name is plastered over this because it holds the multiplex broadcast licence (in the guise of BBC Free to View Ltd) and, as such, had to submit the licence change. However the multiplex in question is used to broadcast all Freeview HD services. So this is broadcaster independent and I would suggest the if isn't that enormous. > moreover, what happens if the rights holders demand something else? > something that's clearly (not just to us on here, but to BBC > management and the regulators) ridiculous? what if they > demanded that all BBC staff wear HBO[0]-branded baseball caps > whenever one of their programmes is aired on FVHD? do we all > go along with it because we're scared of schedule-gaps, or do > we tell them to stuff it, because there are principles at > stake and the proposal is ridiculous? "Don't care. I just want to watch Glee/Heroes/FlashForward/Running Out Of Programme Names For HD Imports/whatever in HD." Actually I don't want to watch them at all, but that's the response you'll get from many people. Don't care. Just want to watch it in HD. > Don't get me wrong, I could actually understand the position > if this was remotely capable of achieving the publicly-stated > aims, but it cannot possibly be. I can't stress that enough, > because it's not an exaggeration or hyperbole: this scheme, > despite what's been said publicly, has about as much to do > with stopping "Internet piracy" as the ASA's latest > advertising adjudication does: nothing. it can't. the effect > it actually has upon pirates is about same as the "Copyright > BBC MMX" at the end of each programme. "I'm the rights holder. Don't tell me you know best about my business. This is my content and I will demand what I feel fit. I believe this works, so we're insisting on it" We all know it doesn't make diddly squat difference. But we still have it. > So, answer this: what right do the rights-holders have to > make these demands of the broadcaster? (IMO, every right - > they can ask anything they like, but it doesn't mean they'll > get it) It's their content as such they have every right to demand it. It is up to the broadcaster to decide whether to submit to those demands. If the content proposition is compelling and - in commercial broadcasters - likely to bring in some serious cash, it might be a decision worth taking. > what right does the licence-fee-funded public-service broadcaster have > to impose them upon the ordinary consumers (the only people who will be > inconvenienced by > them) without weight of merit and to lobby for them? As I mentioned, BBC Free to View Ltd is the licnece holder and rents space to ITV plc, STV and Channel 4 for their respective services. There is the possibility that this request has been asked for by one or more of its clients and as such it would be BBC Free to View Ltd's responsibity to liase with Ofcom on the matter. I don't know the legal status of BBC Free to View Ltd - I'm guessing it's a cost covering subsiduary of the main BBC corporation, and that therefore the only licence fee money it gets is the money paid to it to cover the costs of transmitting BBC HD and associated BBC services. > what > right does the telecommunications industry regulator, who is > supposed to operate in the interests of "consumers and > citizens", have in approving this measure? Because it is the regulator for the broadcasting industry as well. Ofcom was formed out of a number of regulators including the Independent Television Commission. > > ...how would you explain to the average punter that the programme > > could not be broadcast on Freeview HD? And how would you > justify it > > to them in such a way that they went "Yes, you're right" > rather than "Eh?" > "The rights-holder won't allow it". Exactly as you do with > iPlayer, although frankly, I'd name names. Only within the > industry is there a conceptual difference between "broadcast" > and "on-demand" rights and differentials. You could explain it like that, but do people understand it? Do people really care for the reasons why Match of the Day isn't on iPlayer? I keep my eye on the Points of View message board and a regular theme in the summer is "Why isn't this cricket match on the BBC?" It happens every year. And the answer is "because the BBC don't have the rights". To which the answer usually is "Well why don't they?" You can imagine on Freview HD... "Why isn't this programme on MegaChannelHD on Freeview? It's on on Freesat and Sky and Virgin. This is STOOOPID" "Because MegaChannelHD don't have the rights to show it on Freeview" "Well why don't they?" "Because they can't..." "Well why can't they?" "Because there's not enough content protection for the organisation who holds the rights... And by not having it there, you're freedoms to do what you want with the content are being protected?"" "Eh? But I can't watch it..." We can argue around this one as much as we want but I'm afraid there's one simple truth. Most people don't care one bit and just want to watch their programme. - 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]/
