BBC Presents An Open News Archive 129
Cus writes "The BBC have opened a section of their news archive under a Creative Archive license. Nearly 80 items covering the last 50 years are available, with the full list available on their site. Paul Gerhardt the project director of the Creative Archive License Group, from the official announcement: 'The BBC's telling of those stories is part of our heritage, and now that the UK public have the chance to share and keep them we're keen to know how they will be used.'"
Beta test is for UK only (Score:4, Informative)
The archive is only available to IP addresses originating from the UK.
Re:What about the rest of us (Score:3, Informative)
The archive content released here under the Creative Archive Licence will use limited DRM (Digital Rights Management), but not at the cost of user creativity. For instance, to help us identify our source material we will be using a patented Video Watermarking technology where a virtual barcode will be embedded into the video clips. This invisible stamp can be read through video editing and format changes so that any video sequence can be traced back to its source. This will not interfere with legitimate users, but it will assist the BBC if there is an attempt to commercially exploit our material.
The BBC is using a technology called GEO-IP filtering to ensure that archive content sourced directly from these BBC sites will only be available to UK citizens
Re:Wikimedia (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The BBC and Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
Expired programmes are automatically deleted from your hard drive after the 8-day window. Programmes expire due to rights agreements
You can complain about it, but the fact remains that the BBC are currently legally unable to offer many of their programmes in non-DRM formats. In the meantime, however, I'm sure that hundreds of thousands of UK broadband users will be satisfied with what the iMP offers them.
Re:And yet their DRM... (Score:3, Informative)
That difference is the £126.50 TV license [tvlicensing.co.uk] that any TV-owning UK household has to pay. Hence this is is the reason why content is locked in via country - it's not really free as such, we're paying for it. However, it's damn good money for 365 days a year of TV and full content from their online service (including iMP).
£126.50? It's a bargain. Do I mind that I pay for it? No, not at all...
Re:What about the rest of us (Score:5, Informative)
The BBC is fairly regularly attacked in the UK for spending so much on a Web presence that is heavily used by an international audience but which is paid for by a tax on TVs. It would get a right old kicking from the UK press and in particular the Murdoch press if it made content that "we have paid for" freely available overseas. For those who don't realise - the BBC's World Service is paid for directly by the foreign and commonwealth office, not from the TV licence fee.
The License fee is supposed to be spent entirely on the provision of services to the UK population. The BBC is watching its back here.
Wha...? (Score:4, Informative)
You're holding up the BBC as an paragon of social virtue by comparing them to whom? CNN, or PBS? The BBC was created for this kind of thing. Making content available to the public is straight out of the BBC Charter [bbc.co.uk]:
Re:The BBC and Microsoft (Score:3, Informative)
I can answer that one for you now - right for programmes on iMP will have already been agreed, and they will cover broadcast in the UK only. It would be even more expensive to secure rights for worldwide broadcast, and it would no doubt slash the number of shows they could offer for download. As the charter notes, they already have an obligation to deliver the content to licence-fee payers. This project merely extends the obligation to p2p. Still, you raise some valid points, be interesting to hear the response.
Re:demo, and probably thrown out much of the rest. (Score:3, Informative)
Certainly true, but still, the BBC's archive is still enormous, and has got to be one of the most valuable records we have of the 20th century. If this pilot works well, there's a lot they could add to it.
Regarding the Slashdotter's dream of a vast, legal online archive of Doctor Who - the problem there will be with copyrights and actors' contracts and so forth. For example, Terry Nation (or rather, the estate thereof) owns the Daleks. For them to confront the Ninth Doctor took a lot of negotiation by the BBC. What fee would be demanded of the BBC if they proposed to put all the old Dalek episodes online for free download? Or, suppose that, say, Tom Baker's contract says he gets x pounds every time an episode in which he appears gets repeated. How does that translate to downloads? Does he get a penny every time someone downloads an episode? Must the BBC now track down every actor in every episode and negotiate individually with them all?
They'll be busy enough digitising the old news footage for a long time yet. Time enough for a legal framework to be sorted out in which they can begin adding the adventures of the Time Lord.