What is Digg?52 Comments
- wideawakewesley, on 10/12/2007, -1/+49Mr Highfield said the BBC would not be hunting down all BBC-copyrighted clips already uploaded by YouTube members - although it would reserve the right to swap poor quality clips with the real thing, or to have content removed that infringed other people's copyright, like sport, or that had been edited or altered in a way that would damage the BBC's brand.
"We don't want to be overzealous, a lot of the material on YouTube is good promotional content for us," he said.
--
That's exactly the way the world should work, bravo to the BBC! - cloudsoup, on 10/12/2007, -9/+25Exactly the way? Bravo? Are you mad?
Here's the lowdown on the News content:
'Because of the advertising, these clips can be seen outside the UK only. Any UK users clicking on a link to one of the news clips on YouTube will get a message that they have no access to this clip'
- the people who are obliged to pay for the BBC through a mandatory, regressive tax, non-payment of which is punishable by imprisonment, are the only people in the World who won't be allowed to see it.
This is madness. - jdtanner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11"BBC should focus all of its energy on a delivery platform for full length shows online to UK licence fee payers."
They are... http://www.bbc.co.uk/imp/
"This is stupid. I resent that the BBC does so much to allow people from other countries to access their content, advert supported or otherwise. We pay £131.50 per year to gain our access and it is totally wrong that the BBC should invest its time in helping others around the world see it."
Actually, BBC Worldwide buys the offerings from BBC and broadcasts them abroad with adverts. The revenue generated from these sales goes back into making BBC programs for us all to watch. Anway, if you want to watch BBC News 24, just go to the BBC website...far superioor to the cack flv video offerings on YouTube. - jdtanner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9@cloudsoup
It is BBC Worldwide News...which isn't funded by the license fee. There is legislation in place that prevents the BBC from gaining revenue via advertising in the UK...hence the block to UK users. I was quite surprised that the actual BBC Worldwide offerings (non-news) are available though.
FYI, it seems that the BBC World Service (funded by the government) is setup so that people in the UK find it hard to receive (I know we can't in Derbyshire...but could in London). - Chompy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10"The people who are obliged to pay for the BBC through a mandatory, regressive tax, non-payment of which is punishable by imprisonment, are the only people in the World who won't be allowed to see it.
This is madness."
THIS! IS! BRITAIN! - wideawakewesley, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Which is something they are working on and you never know, perhaps all this advertising is helping fund it so the UK license fee payers don't have to pay more for it. Don't forget that full length shows can already be viewed on the BBC website (BBC3 content for example), just not everything...yet.
- mrblack, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9I was a little suprised by that too cloudsoup. Persoanlly people who want to see the bbc with ads should be able too, but a clear link to a non ad site should be given for UK people.
- ryllharu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I just want to watch Top Gear clips. As someone who doesn't get that particular variety of the BBC (BBC America pretty much sucks), it sounds like good news to me.
I do feel bad for you Brits though, that no-access stipulation really sucks. - nandasunu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I think this is a really positive move by the bbc. The no-news for the UK seems dumb, but I guess it is a legal issue. We can access video news clips and some full shows on news.bbc.co.uk though, I don't think that video content is available outside of the UK. I wonder if the youtube news clips will be any different from the news.bcc.co.uk ones, if not then there is no real loss for UK views (apart from maybe convenience)
- mrbenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4The license fee pays for the content you can view in the UK. If you want to view the BBC news from the UK, you can do so in many ways, both broadcast and Internet based. The content shown abroad (eg BBC world) brings in extra revenue from advertising etc, increasing the budget for program making without increasing the license fee.
- Hecks, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4There isn't a no-access stipulation. UK viewers can watch the news clips direct from the BBC News site (without ads).
(CraigMacrae beat me to it below) - spudnic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3'BBC should focus all of its energy on a delivery platform for full length shows online to UK licence fee payers.'
They aleady are, it's gonig to be called the BBC iMP, and it will let you watch shows one week in advance if you like. It comes with some annoying DRM though, the shows are deleted 1 week after your first watch, or after 40-something weeks and no watch.
I've got the internal DVD explaining it on my desk, keep meaning to rip it and put it online. Though in that they call it the iPlayer, thank god they changed the name.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/imp/
Edit: Slightly more on topic, it's moronic to ban UK viewers, they should be able to choose if they see it with ads or not. We still pay our fee, and the advertisers get more views, who loses exactly? - CraigMacrae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3http://www.bbc.co.uk/info/licencefee/#spent
You can see how your licence fee is spent there. It's not like they're trying to hide this information. - CraigMacrae, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3You just can't watch the news videos on YouTube if you're from the UK. They have plenty of news clips without advertising at http://news.bbc.co.uk anyway so I don't really see the problem.
- lcmatt, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4How stupid, I pay for a TV License and can't watch the clips but any other country can.
- domr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Your license fee (and mine) does NOT pay for BBC Worldwide. Advertising revenue pays for BBC Worldwide. The BBC cannot *by law* show ads to UK viewers.
- hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4dont forget open source...the BBC should support it more
(top ten upcoming story)
http://digg.com/linux_unix/Petition_to_UK_GOV_promoting_Open_Source_software_adoption_on_new_computers - palmer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Not to mention that using YouTube is amateur hour. BBC is concerned with its image? Then why is it using, as its official conduit, a sorry site that's no better than AOL or MySpace?
- hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3why are you Digging me down? i didnt submit it
- malcam, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Bear in mind the license fee doesn't actually pay for international viewers. The government provide a separate stream of cash to the BBC to allow people abroad to view the service (in the same way as the World service is offered to the rest of the world). There's also BBC Worldwide which is explained above.
- domr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Why can't you understand this? It's quite simple.
BBC Worldwide is funded by advertising. By law (not necessarily by the BBC's choice) they cannot show UK viewers advertising.
Oh - and BBC Worldwide is a profitable enterprise... and those profits go towards funding the BBC - and keeping your licence fee down.
i.e. BBC Worldwide is subsidising your license fee - not the other way around. - camsoft2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1UK views can use their TV's!
- djackmanson, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1spartansblade is the best undercover agent that the forces of rationality have...he's been in with the conspiracy whackjobs, gaining their trust, learning who's who and writing some of the best informer's reports you've ever seen.
He's been attacking me on other threads, which just adds to the cover story. He didn't even need instructions, he did it of his own accord. This sort of initiative is a shining example to us all. - shiola, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Agreed, I don't see what the fuss is either. There's the BBC website and the TV you can watch the news on if you're that bothered. The point is that it would be unfair competition if the BBC started showing adverts to UK licence fee viewers and would open a can of worms. It ain't that hard to comprehend, plus it's not like you have absolutely no options to watch the BBC news.
- AlphaBronco, on 01/25/2009, -1/+1I'd be willing to write it off if it could be shown that newspapers have printed stories containing detailed information about a major event a full day before actually happened. Information which would have been nigh impossible to know about beforehand.
- spartansblade, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0HAHAHAHAHA That just made my Monday! You make claims and then I respond yet its me who attacked you. Then when you admit that you will bury a story without even reading it because "it annoys you". i love it when i get mud thrown at me. It reminds me that mud slinging is all the debunkers have left. Especially when we are called nuts and then debunkers refuse to debate the facts. And this latest Pathetic "slam" is just that, pathetic.
- KnoaWyls, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It is interesting to see various groups having an interest in how YouTube can help them. I would still like to see how much more content the BBC will provide in the future if this exposure proves to be an asset for them.
- hiPpymIck, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3link with info
http://www.linuxjournal.com/node/1000183 - cloudsoup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@idtanner
2 points.
1) BBC Worldwide is able to use the programming and resources of the BBC. Pretending that BBC Worldwide News is a different entity when it's a wholly-owned subsidiary just won't wash. BBC Worldwide is hawking the BBC's back catalogue and BBC licence-fee payers paid for that in the first place.
2) And as for legislation preventing the BBC gaining revenue from advertising - nobody would have quibbled at people in the UK being able to access to YouTube-delivered content whether it was carrying advertising or not. Besides, your argument is flawed. The commercial wing was setup to exploit BBC content and services. Under the Framework Agreement, the BBC may offer sponsored services with the approval of the relevant Minister. - drxavier, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1But they will only show the tapes that haven't "accidentally" gotten lost due to some "cockup". Like the 9/11 tapes, for instance.
- ronmat, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0The begiineng of a new e-dawn. Test it! And lean back and enjoy!
LOL put your self on the set up! Like the......
http://www.freeviral.com/?r=220048 - MiNGLED, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1You can watch the clips, when they are on TV, which is what we pay for.
- Archos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I mean this, sucker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqqhX8gkhE0
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4IT WAS AN INTERNATIONAL DISASTER.
Apparently everything is supposed to be 100% fact 100% of the time! Oh boy! And the truth movement was right 100% of the time too?
Here's a job for you. Look in the National newspaper. There is a section for "updates and corrections". The section is dedicated to "correcting mistakes" that were made. if the NEWSPAPERS can manage to screw up, then the odds of the BBC messing up a story during one of the most horrifying events in US history, WHILE IT WAS TAKING PLACE, with nothing but confusion, are MUCH GREATER. in fact it's damn well expected! the AP even messed up with the flight numbers During that day, If I recall correctly! Why don't you go say they're a part of the conspiracy too?
Can we go one day, just.. ONE DAY... without mentioning this 9-11 conspiracy stuff? - Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Challenging videos?
dude, the only Challenging thing about those videos you speak of is how long I can watch them without my IQ dropping. - malcam, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3@sandburn: that's selective quoting, read the previous paragraph. The clip is damaging their image because it's being used to promote conspiracy theories.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Why don't they SHOW their video of Jane Standley in front of Building 7 saying its collapsed and its clearly still standing behind her. Guess they LOST that piece of tape though like the editor said. LOL!!! What a joke! They clearly were in on the inside job! There is no way else to look at it.
- ryos, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I want Top Gearrrrrrr!!!!
- cloudsoup, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0domr - it's not that simple.
The BBC can carry sponsorship, as long as the Minister agrees - I suggest you read the Charter and the Framework Agreement.
Your thin argument is cut from under you by the actual BBC story which you clearly haven't read. It says:
'Controversially, the BBC Worldwide page - adverts and all - can be seen in the UK. BBC Worldwide insists that this is not a new departure, as BBC magazines like Top Gear and channels like BBC World and UK Living (which shows mainly BBC content) already do carry advertising
So you're talking through your fundament. - cloudsoup, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0'There's the BBC website and the TV you can watch the news on if you're that bothered.'
Which obliges me to buy own a TV set, which obliges me to pay the licence fee. Get it?
'The point is that it would be unfair competition if the BBC started showing adverts to UK licence fee viewers '
-and the advertising revenue that will accrue to the BBC via a subvention from BBC Worldwide as a consequence of their YouTube deal won't be used by the BBC for programming in the UK, competing against other UK suppliers?
'It ain't that hard to comprehend'
It seems to be for some people. - KataLieb, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9Dr. Bombay said...
I just checked out both the BBC
and CNN clips where two anchors
report that WTC 7 has collapsed
while the building remains
standing in the background of
the LIVE feed. This is like a
reporter doing a live feed from
Dealy Plaza saying Kennedy has
been shot as JFK drives by in his
limo waving to the crowd...
And its damaging to BBC, NOT because it reinforces "theories" (truth is not a theory) but because it shows BBC for what it is, lying fools...
sandburn is exactly correct... - Archos, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Only if Google promotes their biased documentaries and crushes the challenging videos against them?
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2katalieb... Like I said before...
shut up. Thanks! :) - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6This goes part of the way to explaining why Google pulled Google Video and Youtube clips this week relating to the premature reporting by the BBC of the WTC7 collapse. Wouldn't do to offend your new business partner, would it.
Digg is also as dodgy as hell, as they have pulled every WTC7 story this week, including the main one, which had over 2100 diggs. And no, there was reason to bury that story, unless of course it got too close to the truth (which the evidence shows it did)
http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minutes_Before_It_Fell - Mageant, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3"Mr Highfield said the BBC would not be hunting down all BBC-copyrighted clips already uploaded by YouTube members - although it would reserve the right to swap poor quality clips with the real thing, or to have content removed that infringed other people's copyright, like sport, or that had been edited or altered in a way that would damage the BBC's brand."
OK, just another coincede in a series of incredible coincedes that this deal appears just when BBCs footage of pre-knowledge of the WTC-7 collapse is all over YouTube and Google-Video. - dashoot, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0The thing that I can't understand is the BBC takes your £131.50 per year which you have to pay by law but they don't actual tell you what they spend that money on. I would like to see a pie chart describing that £131.50 broken down and posted though your door. The next thing that gets up my nose is the BBC paying high wages for presenters like Jonathan Ross getting 19 million pounds that's just a joke. The license fee keeps going up and up and they don't make any effort what so ever to look for other sources of income. What they should do is come up with new ideas on how to make money like selling the content on DVDs or now though this deal with you tube. But I can guarantee if they do make money though you tube they won't bring down the license fee which is not right and should be look at through of com.
The thing is they are lazy they will not look at new ways of making money for they know that they get a stack of cash each year and what for, the service hasn't improved I only watch dragons den, news night, top gear and the culture show which are all on BBC two the rest is crap. The only comedy is little Britain no more classic comedy sitcoms like only fools and horses. They have all these digital channels but they will not supply you with a digital set top box. Its madness the BBC is more concerned trying to make a global brand rather than serve the public with a good service .
I think I should start a petition on the governments website to bring down the license fee. - marktrefgarne, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1This is the lamest story I've ever heard. Who cares if they serve their content on YouTube - how is that any better than if they just served the content in a reasonably open format on bbc.co.uk? This is a classic story of the Beeb trying to be cool by adopting something percieved as trendy and sadly missing the point.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -9/+3This is stupid. I resent that the BBC does so much to allow people from other countries to access their content, advert supported or otherwise. We pay £131.50 per year to gain our access and it is totally wrong that the BBC should invest its time in helping others around the world see it.
I also think that using YouTube (a commercial entity) to deliver the content is wrong too - why them over any other service?
BBC should focus all of its energy on a delivery platform for full length shows online to UK licence fee payers. - cloudsoup, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1What's the issue with advertising? Can't carry advertising because, why, maybe potential to interfere with purity of editorial content, or contradict BBC's mission, or take revenue from the commercial sector.
But as the BBC IS going to do it away, what unimaginative, dimwitted, timeserving moronic wretch came up with that denial of service? It's stupidity takes my breath away. - spartansblade, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4Well that makes sense. they are making deals with Internet groups so that they can censor what ever they wish. And if they think that the material presented is negative they want the info pulled. When you take this message and remember that google owns youtube remember this story
http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minutes_Before_It_Fell
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is