[Sussex] BBC Video Downloads

[Mark Harrison]

-----Original Message-----
From: sussex-bounces at mailman.lug.org.uk
[mailto:sussex-bounces at mailman.lug.org.uk] On Behalf Of Nic James Ferrier
Sent: 02 February 2007 00:45
To: LUG email list for the Sussex Counties
Cc: gteale at cmedresearch.com
Subject: Re: [Sussex] BBC Video Downloads

> We, the tv licence owners of great britain have paid for this stuff
> once. Why should we pay for it again? Why should our usage of it be
> limited?

OK - time to summarise the argument.

Before you read this, please take a moment to think of your favourite
film... 


The BBC is NOT in a position to change the way that law works, or opt-out of
international treaties on Intellectual Property. 

It is certainly the case that IP law is flawed, and inconsistent, and hard
to see how in its present form best meets its objectives of serving the
common interest, and allowing creators of material to profit therefrom.

However, that is a separate discussion from "What is the best thing for the
BBC to do", which is where I'll now concentrate.

Which is most "in the public interest"?

A: For the BBC to allow ALL its material to be distributed freely over the
Internet, accept a loss in revenue of approximately £625m per year
(representing material that previously it sold on VHS and DVD), and balance
the budget by making about 16% fewer programmes.

B: For the BBC to all ALL its material to be distributed freely over the
Internet, accept a loss in revenue of approximately £625m per year
(representing material that previously it sold on VHS and DVD), keep
programming output at the current level, and seek a 20% increase in the
licence fee to compensate.

C: For the BBC to put in place mechanisms that allow limited download, thus
preserving the revenue it gets from VHS and DVD.


Free distribution of software under, say, the GPL [other licences are
available] works very well, BECAUSE the nature of software makes it easy to
extend, and putting in place a mechanism that makes it incumbent (under
certain circumstances) to release those extensions back to the community has
led to some great collaborative pieces of code - not least of which is
"Linux" itself.

It is harder to see how the economic benefits of redistribution for
extension meaningfully apply to, say, movies. YouTube seems full of "mashed"
examples of where generally the resultant extended version is significantly
inferior to the original product, and vanishingly few where the extended
product improves upon the original.

I _am_ aware of video works like "Star Wars Revolutions" that have been
released under a non-commercial licence. However, I note that these were
released by volunteers who had other sources of income to support themselves
and provide the capital equipment used in film production. I am very
supportive of this (I've been involved in volunteer "Arts Project" movies
myself.) 

However, this doesn't provide a mechanism for creative people to devote all
their time to creative production... and that favourite film I asked you to
think of? Was it a commercial, copyright-restricted production, or have you
thought of something open-source?

Mark


A Version of this message is also available on my blog:
- markharrison.wordpress.com 
Please feel free to either comment on trackback!