As far as I am aware, every song on TOTP up until 1983 was
re-recorded so that the BBC owned the rights of broadcast.... in the charter it clearly states that the BBC must distribute its content to the UK public..... so where is all that music that "I payed for" :-)
A lot of it got discarded, even the good stuff - "The story also features The Beatles in a film clip. It was originally planned for the band to appear as themselves, but under heavy "aging" make-up, to represent themselves in the future; but their schedules conflicted. Thus, footage from the BBC pop music magazine programme Top of the Pops was used instead. Ironically, considering the number of lost Doctor Who episodes, this is the only surviving clip of the Beatles from Top of the Pops." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chase_(Doctor_Who) cheers, m http://www.currybet.net On 28/11/06, Richard Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi Lee, I accept your points, at the same time though, the British are being sold on this idea of privacy with a number, an ID number. Well, as a public Corporation the BBC could reverse that thinking and treat us all as UK residents wherever we are in the world already...... it is still far easier to find people that you can trust, than to be weighed down by the thoughts of people that you cannot. That is pandering to the lowest common denominator. The benefits far out-weigh the negatives for a closer social community. I think it is a shame that all that power goes to support the tiny worse case scenario. As far as I am aware, every song on TOTP up until 1983 was re-recorded so that the BBC owned the rights of broadcast.... in the charter it clearly states that the BBC must distribute its content to the UK public..... so where is all that music that "I payed for" :-) I am sure that similar can be said for BBC TV. All they would have to do is say publically that "such and such" a show was going to be aired on the net, in not best quality, and that the original producer would be payed X. If he doesn't agree - fine - but right now is anyone asking that question? If you can see a matrix of good honest people, the vast majority, across the planet, all UK residents if you want, all hosting bits of a show and streaming it, then the BBC doesn't have to host anything..... it simply has to control the first issue and the delivery mechanism. Which is exactly what it is trying to do now.... along with Sky, ITV etc. The first lines do not have political leanings, please excuse me if it comes across that way. I am not interested in negative or political social engineering, but take a look, the fact is that it is happening all around us right now. Richard On Tuesday, November 28, 2006, at 09:52AM, "Lee Goddard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >From P Edwards (Monday, November 27, 2006 11:19 PM): > >> I think it is pretty laughable :-) >> >> I am very happy to pay for quality and expensive programming, >> but being censored from the same, just because of a legal >> precedent, is almost the ultimate insult, especially if one >> does have a UK TV license. >> In my hallucination, it should take one person within >> Auntie's legal department about a month to change the >> contracts for content production, add some budget for servers >> and bandwidth, to make the biggest change to how the BBC >> works since radio gave way to black and white TV. > >Probably less time, but I guess the problems isn't that the Beeb can't find the time for contract-updating. I imagine every recording has associated contracts and releases, and often after the initial broadcast and an agreed number of re-broadcastings, the artist release evaporates, and the rights revert to the performers. > > >> I can hear the voices of resistance still. There is absolutely no reason not to.... > >Hosting all that media, not to mention distributing it at a reasonable rate, is not going to be cheap. > > >> So where exactly did all this "locking out" and streaming >> certain content to certain places come from? Big brother? :-) > >It certainly annoyed me when in Cologne: I could watch Planet Earth but not the website. On the other hand, I would be more annoyed if, after paying my TV Tax/Licence, I couldn't watch the website because the bandwidth is consumed by people outside the UK who don't pay for it. Maybe that's selfish of me :) > > >> How about leading the way with both feet in to a new world of >> a really universal BBC on the net, with none of the >> boundaries? The opposite to the TV world. > >To be fair, it is the British Broadcasting Corporation, not Universal ;) >Flippant, but I do think that it is not the job of the British Broadcasting Corporation to be addressing the world (save the World Service, World news channel): rather, shouldn't Auntie be taking care of broadcasting to the British people? > > >> I'm sure that a way could be programmed to reverse Psiphon or >> the like, with something like real-time P2P to distribute the >> feeds via a massive server of "trusted" associates, now that >> would be exciting. > >Doesn't P2P tend to distribute the lowest common denominator? So it'd still be hard to find my little history documentaries online. > > >> I'll pay and deliver, how's that? I hope that the future is >> MAC addresses, not IP's. > >It's much easier to spoof a MAC address than an IP address, though. > > >Lee "I rather like Mark Thompson" Goddard >Not a BBC Employee.... > >- >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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ > > - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
- 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
