The BBC will almost certainly be paying royalties to the likes of the presenters, writers, musicians etc for anything they show outside of the initial contracted showings (often referred to as "repeat fees").
This is because the BBC will only have an agreement for so many showings over a certain time-scale in the original contracts, anything outside that costs additional money.
Correct, Diamond Stat please take note, you'll learn something new everytime you start a thread
Transferring all those old shows on obsolete formats could make me, and other oldies, a fortune. How many people can operate a Quad machine for example and you would have to bring back those old Cintel telecinies that are rotting away in some shed somewhere to cope with the demand. £100/hr for our services OK? Thought not, they will have to stay on the shelf then until the few engineers who can deal with them get around to doing so. Or you could just buy the DVDs of what's available like I do.
How many millions would it cost to put all the red dwarfs on Iplayer?
I am only talking about popular series.
Diamond stat started off asking whether all series made by the BBC should be made available free to licence payers. Within the space of an hour and a half, he'd reduced it to just programmes he personally liked. It obviously didn't take long for him to realise it was a ridiculous unworkable idea
Diamond stat started off asking whether all series made by the BBC should be made available free to licence payers. Within the space of an hour and a half, he'd reduced it to just programmes he personally liked. It obviously didn't take long for him to realise it was a ridiculous unworkable idea
I wrote earlier, posts like this are always about cult programmes not serious quality programmes.
BBC Worldwide only has a controlling interest in the Top Gear production company (Bedder 6) so of course they will have to pay royalties.
Bedder6 has never been "the Top Gear production company"
TG has always been a BBC in-house production.
Bedder 6 was started by Clarkson and Wilman to do stuff like the live show, merchandising of their likenesses, some DVD-only specials etc. It never made the Top Gear show.
The BBC will almost certainly be paying royalties to the likes of the presenters, writers, musicians etc for anything they show outside of the initial contracted showings (often referred to as "repeat fees").
This is because the BBC will only have an agreement for so many showings over a certain time-scale in the original contracts, anything outside that costs additional money.
Music is an exception. The BBC pay a flat fee to the PRS each year no matter what shows use what music. This is only for BBC broadcast though, which is why Top Gear episodes on Dave and sold overseas have all the original music replaced with generic stuff.
So if this was to happen, it would immediately devalue all the programmes.
They wouldn't then be able to re-sell the programmes by BBC Worldwide on DVD/BluRay (or at least not at the current prices).
Nor would they be able to re-sell/broadcast the programmes on other satellite/cable channels like Gold etc.
This would all therefore mean LESS money for the BBC.
So, do the people that voted yes also agree to the BBC closing services or substantially raising the license fee to pay for this idea?
Transferring all those old shows on obsolete formats could make me, and other oldies, a fortune. How many people can operate a Quad machine for example and you would have to bring back those old Cintel telecinies that are rotting away in some shed somewhere to cope with the demand. £100/hr for our services OK? Thought not, they will have to stay on the shelf then until the few engineers who can deal with them get around to doing so. Or you could just buy the DVDs of what's available like I do.
I'm 24 and interested in vintage broadcast technology. Not just collecting it but restoring it. With the very few people like me of my generation who are interested in transferring archive media to digital formats, we often just don't know where to begin to enter that part of the industry!
I'm 24 and interested in vintage broadcast technology. Not just collecting it but restoring it. With the very few people like me of my generation who are interested in transferring archive media to digital formats, we often just don't know where to begin to enter that part of the industry!
There isn't really a vintage broadcast industry, most transfer work is/was done by older engineers, frequently close to retirement. Young engineers are unsurprisingly not interested in learning about fading technologies.
So if this was to happen, it would immediately devalue all the programmes.
They wouldn't then be able to re-sell the programmes by BBC Worldwide on DVD/BluRay (or at least not at the current prices).
Nor would they be able to re-sell/broadcast the programmes on other satellite/cable channels like Gold etc.
This would all therefore mean LESS money for the BBC.
So, do the people that voted yes also agree to the BBC closing services or substantially raising the license fee to pay for this idea?
Also phil, I have a feeling that those complaining about not having access to the older programmes did not pay for the production at the time, because they weren't the Licence Fee payer at the time.
Music is an exception. The BBC pay a flat fee to the PRS each year no matter what shows use what music. This is only for BBC broadcast though, which is why Top Gear episodes on Dave and sold overseas have all the original music replaced with generic stuff.
Music is NOT an exception.
'PRS for Music' collects royalties for songwriters, composers and publishers of musical works. It also collects royalties for the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society for the use of recordings from Production Music libraries.
Certain uses of music are not automatically enshrined in the BBC blanket agreement and are subject to prior approval by the rights owners, who are not compelled to approve such uses.
In any case, the use of commercially available recordings, that is, the stuff that the general public can buy on CD and as MP3s by well known bands and artists, is (in the main) subject to licence from Phonographic Performance Limited in addition to the PRS for Music licence.
Some music does not fall into any of the aforementioned agreements.
Yes- as far as is practical because obviously not everything has been saved.
But it's crazy you have to pay a subscription for channels like GOLD, which mostly shows stuff made using licence fee payers money.
No it's not crazy at all. If another broadcaster wants to exploit the BBC archive, then they should pay for the rights to show them. And those channels in turn earn their crust from subscription. Why should money from TV licences go towards paying for artists rights and royalties on non-FTA channels, whom many TVL payers won't benefit from and won't like paying towards the profits of a private company though the TVL?
Yes- as far as is practical because obviously not everything has been saved.
But it's crazy you have to pay a subscription for channels like GOLD, which mostly shows stuff made using licence fee payers money.
I've paid for the NHS. Does that mean I can just walk into a hospital and help myself to stuff? I've always wanted one of those machines that goes ping.
As said earlier the BBC giving stuff away, outside it's PSB remit, would violate competition law. How could ITV and Sky compete selling their DVDs if the BBC DVDs were free or dirt cheap? That's why the BBC had to shut down huge parts of its website a few years ago, commercial rivals complained. That's why things like Project Canvas and Kangaroo had to jump through regulatory hoops to see if they should be allowed.
Plus legally much of what you see on channels like Dave and Gold are made by independent production companies who own the rights, not the BBC. QI, Mock The Week, HIGNFY etc all made and owned by indies, who clearly want to make a profit. Those rights are not the BBCs to sell.
On the other hand, shows that are made by the BBC and sold on mean profit going back to the BBC to help fund more new shows. Without that income the licence fee would have to be ten or twenty pounds a year higher, or lots of shows cancelled.
Comments
Correct, Diamond Stat please take note, you'll learn something new everytime you start a thread
I wrote earlier, posts like this are always about cult programmes not serious quality programmes.
Bedder6 has never been "the Top Gear production company"
TG has always been a BBC in-house production.
Bedder 6 was started by Clarkson and Wilman to do stuff like the live show, merchandising of their likenesses, some DVD-only specials etc. It never made the Top Gear show.
Music is an exception. The BBC pay a flat fee to the PRS each year no matter what shows use what music. This is only for BBC broadcast though, which is why Top Gear episodes on Dave and sold overseas have all the original music replaced with generic stuff.
They wouldn't then be able to re-sell the programmes by BBC Worldwide on DVD/BluRay (or at least not at the current prices).
Nor would they be able to re-sell/broadcast the programmes on other satellite/cable channels like Gold etc.
This would all therefore mean LESS money for the BBC.
So, do the people that voted yes also agree to the BBC closing services or substantially raising the license fee to pay for this idea?
What about their missing programmes?
I'm 24 and interested in vintage broadcast technology. Not just collecting it but restoring it. With the very few people like me of my generation who are interested in transferring archive media to digital formats, we often just don't know where to begin to enter that part of the industry!
This site may interest you.
www.vintageradio.co.uk.
There isn't really a vintage broadcast industry, most transfer work is/was done by older engineers, frequently close to retirement. Young engineers are unsurprisingly not interested in learning about fading technologies.
It is actually going the way I suspected it would.
Music is NOT an exception.
'PRS for Music' collects royalties for songwriters, composers and publishers of musical works. It also collects royalties for the Mechanical Copyright Protection Society for the use of recordings from Production Music libraries.
Certain uses of music are not automatically enshrined in the BBC blanket agreement and are subject to prior approval by the rights owners, who are not compelled to approve such uses.
In any case, the use of commercially available recordings, that is, the stuff that the general public can buy on CD and as MP3s by well known bands and artists, is (in the main) subject to licence from Phonographic Performance Limited in addition to the PRS for Music licence.
Some music does not fall into any of the aforementioned agreements.
But it's crazy you have to pay a subscription for channels like GOLD, which mostly shows stuff made using licence fee payers money.
No it's not crazy at all. If another broadcaster wants to exploit the BBC archive, then they should pay for the rights to show them. And those channels in turn earn their crust from subscription. Why should money from TV licences go towards paying for artists rights and royalties on non-FTA channels, whom many TVL payers won't benefit from and won't like paying towards the profits of a private company though the TVL?
I've paid for the NHS. Does that mean I can just walk into a hospital and help myself to stuff? I've always wanted one of those machines that goes ping.
As said earlier the BBC giving stuff away, outside it's PSB remit, would violate competition law. How could ITV and Sky compete selling their DVDs if the BBC DVDs were free or dirt cheap? That's why the BBC had to shut down huge parts of its website a few years ago, commercial rivals complained. That's why things like Project Canvas and Kangaroo had to jump through regulatory hoops to see if they should be allowed.
Plus legally much of what you see on channels like Dave and Gold are made by independent production companies who own the rights, not the BBC. QI, Mock The Week, HIGNFY etc all made and owned by indies, who clearly want to make a profit. Those rights are not the BBCs to sell.
On the other hand, shows that are made by the BBC and sold on mean profit going back to the BBC to help fund more new shows. Without that income the licence fee would have to be ten or twenty pounds a year higher, or lots of shows cancelled.