Techdirt. Stories about "bbc"

Welsh Radio Station Forced To Play Classical Music, English Songs After Royalty Talks Stall

Tim Cushing — Thu, 3 Jan 2013 07:26:53 PST

Another battle between artists' representatives and an outlet for these same artists to be heard has resulted in... one less place for these artists to be heard. Radio Cymru, the Welsh arm of BBC Radio, has cut its broadcast day by two hours and drastically altered its playlist after losing its right to use a catalog of 30,000 Welsh songs.

Classical music and hymns are replacing rock and pop on BBC Radio Cymru as the deadline for a rights deal with leading Welsh-language musicians passes.

The right to broadcast the songs of 331 Welsh-language musicians and music publishers rests with Eos - the Welsh word for nightingale - from today.

The BBC said Eos had rejected a substantial offer to settle the dispute shortly before Christmas. As no agreement was reached, Radio Cymru has implemented changes to its broadcasting hours and programme content.

BBC Cymru Wales said in a statement on Monday it was "very disappointed" an agreement had not been reached and confirmed Radio Cymru programmes would be affected.

"Radio Cymru's commitment to support and develop Welsh music is a longstanding one - and we have listened carefully to the concerns of Welsh-language composers and artists during this dispute," the statement said.

Once again, the desire to make a cash grab has overwhelmed the desire to be heard. And it always seems to be "representatives" of the artists that keep cutting ahead in line to get their hands out first, often at the expense of the very artists they "serve."

Unsurprisingly, the pernicious acts of another performance rights group is behind Eos' search for a "fair price." Having been screwed by an old Techdirt favorite, Eos is now attempting to force the BBC make up for PRS' actions.

The musicians broke away from the Performing Rights Society (PRS) to join a new agency, claiming they were being short-changed for their work. The dispute arose from a change by the PRS in 2007 which many Welsh language artists claim cut their royalty payments by as much as 85%.

Rather than attempt to get PRS to pay this "fair share," Eos has decided to go after the broadcasters who had nothing to do with the severe slashing of royalty payments, which fell from £1.6m in 2007 to £260,000 in 2009. Eos is acting on the recommendation of research paper published in 2009 that presented a way to generate (or at least ask for) nearly 10 times the going rate per minute of broadcast time.

The report says artists who broadcast on BBC Radio Cymru receive 49p for every minute of airtime, collected by PRS. However, it says Radio Cymru is treated like an English local radio station, rather than a national broadcaster

The report argues that if the station was available on the UK DAB network of digital stations, artists would earn £4.71 per minute, nearly ten times as much. It said a Welsh-based royalties agency would be aiming to bring back in something more like the larger DAB royalties fees.

"Welsh language repertoire - Radio Cymru relies on that for its broadcasting," pointed out the report's joint author, Deian ap Rhisiart. "If the whole composers and publishers en block declare they are terminating their membership with the PRS, then the BBC haven't got any choice but to deal with them - that's the scenario."

At that point, a spokesman for BBC Wales (quite logically) claimed that this was a dispute between PRS and its Welsh members, and that these two entities should attempt to solve it on their own. Unfortunately, Welsh artists decided it would be better to set up their own organization and tangle with the BBC directly. The end result? An outcome that overreaching rights organizations all over the world are familiar with: no additional income and the loss of an outlet.

So, in a quest for "more," Welsh artists have ended up with less (at least temporarily) exposure and the very real potential of finding themselves vilified by the same listeners who used to consider themselves fans. Rather than go after PRS for screwing Welsh artists, Eos decided to pass the screwing along to Radio Cymru, pricing itself out of the market and depriving itself of a useful promotional tool.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

DMCA Fun: Movie Studios Issue Takedowns Over Their Authorized Films

Mike Masnick — Tue, 4 Dec 2012 13:02:00 PST

We've covered how often DMCA notices seem to be sent improperly, taking down others people's work, but it's also true that we see people send DMCA notices on their own work pretty often. TorrentFreak has done a great job detailing many cases where Hollywood's biggest and most famous studios have been issuing DMCA takedowns on their own movies, as well as their own movie promotional pages. Among the takedowns are ones from Lionsgate taking down authorized versions of a film on iTunes, Amazon, Blockbuster and Xfinity.

Then there's 20th Century Fox trying to protect Family Guy... by issuing a takedown of the Wikipedia page about the show. Even worse? Another takedown for the show How I Met Your Mother, in which the "original work URL" listed is the CBS website for the show (which makes sense), but that very same URL is listed for takedown Other studios seem to takedown press stories about their movies. The BBC, for example sent takedowns on a bunch of press coverage and reviews of their film "Ill Manors." While Sony Pictures issued a takedown supposedly about their film "The Other Guys," but which really targeted a ton of articles... about Megaupload. And then there are just random ones like notoriously aggressive about IP studio Summit Entertainment issuing takedowns over the movie 50/50... but including an announcement about US Energy Secretary Steven Chu delivering a keynote speech at the "50th Anniversary" of SLAC (the Stanford Linear Accelerator). Apparently, you can't take a chance with anything that has "50" in the title. Might be the movie.

While these may be amusing to point out, they raise a much larger issue. Copyright holders like to insist that companies like Google and others can just "obviously" tell what is and what is not infringing and they should be able to magically stop piracy because of that. And yet... here we are, where the studios themselves can't even figure it out. How the hell do they expect others to figure it out for them?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Lord McAlpine, Wronged By BBC, Demands 10,000 People On Twitter Pay Up

Mike Masnick — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 13:18:09 PST

Folks in the UK have spent much of this month following the story of Lord McAlpine (Robert Alistair McAlpine) the former politician who worked for Margaret Thatcher. Earlier this month, the BBC reported on its Newsnight program that an unnamed former "senior" politician in the UK government was implicated in a child abuse scandal. People on Twitter quickly assumed from the description that it was McAlpine, and the story spread quickly. A few days later, the Guardian broke the story that it was a case of mistaken identity. That scandal has thrown the BBC into chaos over its reporting.

But, more interesting to us, is the fact that Lord McAlpine (not a Twitter user) has announced his intention to go after 10,000 Twitter users for either claiming he was the person in question or for retweeting someone else saying that. Some have already apologized for their tweets, but even among those who have, they claim that McAlpine's lawyers are going to ridiculous lengths, with one person, Sally Bercow, who has apologized, also claiming that McAlpine's lawyers are "ambulance chasers" and "big bullies."

But the decision to force 10,000 people to pay up seems crazy:

Lawyers acting for Lord McAlpine have also drawn up a "very long list" of targets they intend to pursue for defamation, including the authors of 1,000 original tweets and a further 9,000 individuals who retweeted those messages.

Apparently if you're "small time" you won't have to pay as much:

Lord McAlpine's solicitor, Andrew Reed, said last night that those with under 500 followers will be asked to make a donation to charity as part of a settlement, with an "administration fee" for sorting it out. He added that higher profile figures, such as Ms Bercow, are "a separate matter".

Here's the insane part: McAlpine claims that he's doing this to "restore my reputation." Demanding 10,000 people on Twitter pay up isn't going to "restore" your reputation. It's going to tarnish it. Yes, it's pretty clear that McAlpine was wronged by the initial reports that suggested he was involved in the scandal. And the BBC is paying up handsomely for their mistake (apparently a six figure settlement has already been negotiated). But the news that the BBC's report was false spread like wildfire. Everyone knows the report was false. Going after people on Twitter for talking about it doesn't do anything more to restore his reputation, it just makes him look like a giant bully -- and, in the process, calls much more attention to him and his tactics here.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Tesla Fails Again In Suing Top Gear For Mocking Tesla's Range

Mike Masnick — Wed, 7 Mar 2012 19:19:12 PST

We've never quite understood the strategy of electric automaker Tesla to sue the BBC and Top Gear because of an episode that involved a Tesla roadster, which the Top Gear crew mocked, at one point claiming it only got 55 miles before the batteries ran out of juice. This was a marginally amusing segment on a show that's known for tossing around a (somewhat joking) insult or six about lots of cars. In other words, no big deal. Except to Tesla -- and specifically its founder, Elon Musk, who lashed out angrily about the show and then sued for "libel" over the episode. Apparently that strategy failed even faster than a Tesla battery* and did so twice. After having the first lawsuit tossed out, an amended lawsuit met the same fate with the judge saying that the claims were "not capable of being defamatory at all, or, if it is, it is not capable of being a sufficiently serious defamatory meaning to constitute a real and substantial tort." In other words, go away.

The thing is, I can't see how this made any sense at all. Most people would have just moved on, but by suing it seems to only call more attention to the original claims and generate much more interest in that episode. If Tesla had just let it go and focused on, you know, building great cars, no one would have cared much about a jokey comment from a TV show.

* This, too, is a joke, so don't sue me for making a joke about your batteries. I'm actually a big fan of Tesla and am eagerly looking forward to the company's future models which look pretty damn cool.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BBC Thinks Only It Can Have TV Shows About People Dancing; Sues Berlusconi For 'Porn' Version

Mike Masnick — Thu, 22 Sep 2011 14:46:35 PDT

When I heard that the BBC was suing Silvio Berlusconi's Mediaset, just knowing the two players involved, I expected to side with the BBC. But on this one I'm left scratching my head over the BBC's ridiculous claim. Apparently, the BBC thinks that it owns the idea of a reality TV show about dancing, a la "Dancing With The Stars" here in the US. In the UK, the BBC apparently runs a similar show called Strictly Come Dancing. Mediaset has apparently launched a new show, Baila! Everyone seems to admit that MediaSet didn't even copy Strictly Come Dancing. Instead, Mediaset points out that it actually adapted a South American dance show "Bailando Por Un Sueno (Dancing For A Dream)," which is different... in that it includes "scantily-clad dancers," and has even included "a model [who] danced topless and simulated sex."

Silvio Berlusconi's son, Pier Silvio Berluscoi, apparently responded by saying that it's "Ok to copy ideas" in television, and he's right. Copyright applies to expression, not ideas. And, even in this case, the ideas appear to be different -- in some ways very different. So, I don't get it. Does the BBC really think that it can own the idea of people dancing on a television show? It seems clear that some of this is to protect the BBC's relationship with a competing Italian TV network, which did license the BBC's show -- but still this seems like a gross overreach by the BBC.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Google Street View Is Invasion Of Privacy... But The BBC Showing Everyone At The Royal Wedding?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 4 May 2011 08:51:27 PDT

We've been somewhat mystified about the complaints people have about images of people on Google Street View. Google is now "blurring" people to help deal with the issue, but it seems pretty silly, really. You're out in public. Someone can randomly take your photo. Of course, the backlash against Google Street View has been particularly harsh throughout Europe, where people insist it's a massive affront to their privacy. And yet... Glyn Moody points us to a blog post comparing the reaction to Street View to the reaction to the BBC putting up a high-def image of crowds at the Royal Wedding, and asking people if they can spot themselves.

This raises an interesting question on privacy and balance.

Google decided to blur the faces of ordinary people going about their ordinary activities caught on Street View.

The BBC have decided, where events like the Royal Wedding are concerned, it's fine to have high definition street shots showing the faces of ordinary people in the crowd; not to mention police officers, armed forces and - presumably - under-cover crowd security officers.

It certainly seems like a double standard. Is there something different about this being an "event"? I can't see how that makes much of a difference, really. Is there something about it being a "US" company vs. a UK organization? Or do people just not really think through these things until someone freaks out and screams "privacy violation!"?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BBC Journalist Admits He Took Out Super Injunction

Mike Masnick — Wed, 27 Apr 2011 01:37:54 PDT

We've been discussing the ridiculously anti-free speech super injunctions in the UK, which block the press or anyone from reporting on certain things (even if factual). What's amazing is how frequently these seem to be used by famous people in the UK, basically, to avoid being embarrassed by their own actions (having an affair seems to be a big one). Most of the folks in the press seem to find these quite ridiculous, which is why it's surprising to many to find out that the BBC's Andrew Marr took out one such super injunction himself a few years back to avoid having details come out about an affair he had with another journalist. The only reason it's come out now is that he's admitting he's "embarrassed" that he got the super injunction in the first place. As others point out, it's pretty hypocritical as a journalist to then seek to censor other journalists.

Mr Hislop, who has twice challenged Mr Marr's super-injunction, said: "As a leading BBC interviewer who is asking politicians about failures in judgment, failures in their private lives, inconsistencies, it was pretty rank of him to have an injunction while working as an active journalist.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

The Future Of Journalism Involves Recognizing The Community Exists... And Talking With Them

Mike Masnick — Wed, 16 Mar 2011 00:00:00 PDT

One of my biggest complaints about the way some old school journalism folks view "the news business," is that they still have trouble recognizing they're in the community business. They're so focused on delivering the "news," they forget the bigger issue. The news business has always been a community business. It was a way of bringing together a community of people with something in common (usually locality), and then selling their attention to advertisers. The big problem facing the industry today is that there are many more ways for communities to form. They used to be one of the few games in town. These days, however, there are many, many more places for communities -- and most of them treat the communities much better, and provide a lot more value. And yet, too often we hear newspaper folks talk down to and insult the idea that they should ever be expected to actually rub virtual shoulders with their community. They don't like using comments. They don't want to talk to fans or critics alike. They just want to report the news and move on.

Obviously, there are many, many exceptions to this. And the number of exceptions are growing and that's a good thing, because eventually they won't be exceptions at all. For now, though, it's nice to highlight stories of journalists recognizing the importance of actually communicating with their community. Pickle Monger points us to a piece by a long-time BBC reporter, Paul Reynolds, talking about his experience embracing the community rather than shunning it, and recognizing that this involvement of the public really is "the future of news." He admits it wasn't always pleasant, and it did require establishing something of a thick skin, but he seems to feel that it's worth it.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

NBC, BBC, Travel Channel: Not Guilty Of Racketeering For Asking People About Ideas For TV Shows

Mike Masnick — Wed, 6 Oct 2010 23:55:15 PDT

When you go around preaching the concept that ideas can be "owned," you're just asking for a lawsuit when you then ask people to voluntarily submit their own ideas. At some point, the Travel Channel put up a website, asking viewers for ideas for new shows. I'm sort of surprised they would do this, seeing as they must have known what would happen next. Some guy submitted an idea that probably a dozen or more people submitted: do a reality show on a family driving around the country in an RV. And, when the Travel Channel, along with NBC and the BBC announced a show called "The Great American Road Trip," the guy Christopher Cardillo insisted it was his idea that was being taken unfairly. So he sued for both copyright infringement and racketeering.

Of course, you can't copyright ideas and Cardillo had never actually registered the copyright on the proposal itself anyway, so there was no copyright claim. And, now the court has also tossed out the ridiculous racketeering charge. The idea that setting up a website to solicit show ideas is akin racketeering seems to be a bigger stretch than even some of the most ridiculous lawsuits we see on a daily basis. While it's good that the court dismissed this, I'm amazed at a few things. First, on the copyright issue, the court notes "plaintiffs' failure to register their idea is fatal to their copyright claim." But, um, shouldn't the court know that you can't copyright an idea? While it gets the results right, the reasoning is weird.

Similarly, on the racketeering issue, the court spends a lot of time focusing on how there's no pattern of racketeering from a single incident, but it's not clear that there was even a single incident that is in any way illegal. The idea of doing a reality show of people traveling in RVs around the country is hardly unique, and the actual show is quite different than what Cardillo proposed anyway (his involved just his family driving from the US to South America -- the real show involves a bunch of families around the country involved in a contest).

Still, in the end, it's surprising that in a TV industry made up of folks who keep insisting that ideas can be "owned," that anyone would ever bother to put up a website asking for show ideas, and not expect to get sued.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BBC Loses Its Attempt To Silence Top Gear Test Driver The Stig From Revealing His Identity

Mike Masnick — Thu, 2 Sep 2010 01:30:45 PDT

The incredibly popular UK BBC TV show Top Gear has been involved in a legal fight with publisher HarperCollins over the plans to publish a book revealing the identity of "The Stig," the always secretive test driver who appears in the show unidentified in a racing suit and helmet. The BBC spent its (publicly-funded) money to try to prevent such a revelation, but the UK courts have pointed out the basic free speech rights involved, and allowed racecar driver Ben Collins to admit that he's The Stig and have his autobiography published. Of course, in watching this battle unfold, I was confused as to why the BBC was going after HarperCollins, rather than targeting Ben Collins directly (and, by the way, I'm assuming the "Collins" in both names is a coincidence). Either way, as HarperCollins notes, this does appear to be a victory for free speech. In the meantime, if the BBC is really so upset that "the mystery" is gone, why not just get a new once-again secret Stig? In fact, the BBC has actually done exactly that in the past, dumping Perry McCarthy as the original Stig after his identity was revealed.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Oscar Winner Sues BBC & CBS For Copyright Infringement Of His Photo

Mike Masnick — Fri, 6 Aug 2010 03:09:09 PDT

THREsq has an interesting story about how the guy, Louie Psihoyos, who won an Oscar for best documentary this year for The Cove, apparently has a pretty quick legal trigger finger against anyone using a photograph he took 15 years ago. He's sued a bunch of companies over the years, and the latest is the BBC and CBS. He claims that it cost him $100,000 to create the photograph, which can be seen here: And, yes, THREsq is showing the photo as well. In these two cases, it seems like clear fair use, since we're both reporting on the photo itself. However, where the BBC potentially got into trouble is in using the same photo to illustrate an article about Intel betting on TV and video content. What's odd, however, is that the reason CBS is being sued is "that CBS Marketing appropriated it for commercial display at the 2009 Intel Developers Forum." This makes me wonder if CBS Marketing used the image at the event that the BBC was reporting on, leading the BBC to believe it had the ability to use that image. That could make the legal fight a bit more interesting.

However, the article also notes that Psihoyos has sued a bunch of times in the past over this photo as well. For example, a year ago, he sued Apple for the second time over this photo. While that lawsuit was eventually settled, the details suggest that Psihoyos was barking up the wrong tree on that lawsuit. It wasn't a case of Apple using the image, but a random iPhone app developer. You would think that Apple would have a clear DMCA safe harbor response, which would protect it from such a lawsuit, so I'm a bit surprised they ended up settling.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Regulators Allow BBC To DRM Its Content

Mike Masnick — Thu, 17 Jun 2010 01:04:44 PDT

Following on the US FCC's decision to let Hollywood add some DRM to movies it broadcasts to television, it looks like UK regulators Ofcom have gone even further in allowing the BBC to similarly use a form of DRM to try to stop copying of HD programming. Not surprisingly, this also came at the request of the entertainment industry. But, again, this seems to be about breaking what your technology allows, just so that the entertainment industry can have the illusion of control. The reports all say things like "This will allow broadcasters to stop piracy of shows," but that's patently ridiculous. There are always ways around these blocks for those who really want to get there -- and those shows will still end up online just as quickly (or maybe a few seconds later). And at that point, the locks are meaningless... except to folks who didn't want to have to buy an expensive locked down settop box that is required to view this kind of content. It's an incredibly anti-consumer move that has little to no benefit to the entertainment industry, other than in their minds.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BBC Postpones iPhone App After Newspapers Feel Threatened

Mike Masnick — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 19:58:00 PDT

Back in February, we noted that UK newspapers (the same ones who are blocking aggregators and putting up paywalls) were getting angry that the BBC was going to release an iPhone app. Their complaint was that it was somehow unfair, since the BBC is publicly funded, even though all it was really doing was taking its website and formating it better for the iPhone. Unfortunately, it looks like the BBC has agreed to put the whole thing on hold while it explores the issue. This is really unfortunate. At the same time that UK newspapers are locking up their content, they're trying to force others to do the same as well. Of course, they don't seem to realize that this won't help them any. It certainly won't help their business model. As for the BBC... well, it'll be a bit more annoying, but I imagine most folks who want their BBC content will quickly open a browser and go straight to the website. But they won't suddenly agree to pay Rupert Murdoch to access his news.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BBC Link Policy: We Want To Send A Lot Of Traffic To Other Sites

Mike Masnick — Mon, 22 Mar 2010 14:12:00 PDT

We're so used to websites whose "link policies" are about what they want you to do to link to them, combined with the tendency for traditional media players to hate the external link, as if it were some sign of failure, that when someone anonymously submitted a link to the BBC News' "link policies," you'll have to forgive me for expecting the worst. Instead, the link policies were a bit of a revelation. They're all about how to link more to other sources. It all starts with a goal of sending more traffic elsewhere:

The BBC Strategy Review [1.40MB PDF] recently unveiled by director general Mark Thompson set as one of its goals a major increase in outbound links from the BBC website - a doubling of the number of "click-throughs" to external sites from 10 million to 20 million a month by 2013.

It then goes into a list of specific policies, which pretty much all focus on adding lots of external links to stories. Of course, given how UK newspapers are suddenly working hard to block links from others, you have to wonder if those same papers are going to start blocking the BBC as well...

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

UK Newspapers Demand BBC iPhone App Be Blocked Because It's Too Competitive

Mike Masnick — Mon, 22 Feb 2010 02:31:20 PST

It's really amazing sometimes to see the entitlement mentality of newspapers -- who for years built business models on the fact that there was a scarcity of news sources out there. Now that they're finally facing real competition, rather than adapt, many seem to whine and ask the government to step in for them. Over in the UK, news publications have long been upset about the BBC, since its funded by the public, and they've been known to complain about competition from the BBC for years. So it's no surprise that they're demanding the BBC's new iPhone app be blocked. They claim that the app "will undermine the commercial sector's ability to establish an economic model in an emerging but potentially important market ... This, over the long term, will reduce members' ability to invest in quality journalism."

Really? So the newspapers are basically admitting they're too clueless to compete in the marketplace? Sure, the BBC is publicly funded, but it's just one publication out there. Certainly newspapers can create their own services that attract an audience that competes with what the BBC is offering (or is focused on areas the BBC won't do). This is basically newspapers admitting they're too lazy to compete. Technically, the newspapers are complaining that this is a "new service" that needs approval, but the BBC correctly points out that all it did was create an app out of its existing web content.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Is The BBC An AP Parasite?

Mike Masnick — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 17:53:46 PDT

Over the last few months we've been hearing all these claims about how various "aggregators" and internet sites that simply rewrite articles from "mainstream" publications are somehow "parasites." But, of course, that ignores the fact that many of those mainstream publications do the exact same thing themselves. So, for example, earlier this week, there was a cute AP article getting passed around about a girl by the name of Kelly Hildebrandt who was bored one night and looked on Facebook for anyone else with her name, and found that the only other one was actually a guy. One thing led to another, and now they're getting married to each other (awwwww.) Anyway, not long after that, I saw that the BBC appears to have a very similar article, and it's quite clear that all they did was rewrite the AP's article. At one point, they do credit the AP, but the article is almost a direct paraphrase of the AP's. So does the AP start calling the BBC a parasite, too? Or does it finally realize that no one owns the news, and lots of publications often rewrite the news and have for ages?

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Guardian Asks UK Gov't To Investigate Google News For Not Contributing To Journalism?

Mike Masnick — Tue, 31 Mar 2009 15:29:59 PDT

It had seemed like perhaps The Guardian newspaper in the UK understood how the internet worked. After all, execs there had been saying that they hoped the NYTimes would start charging, since it would just drive a lot more traffic their way. However, it seems like not everyone at The Guardian is on the same page. Similar to Feargal Sharkey's call demand that the UK government investigate Google for not giving the recording industry money, The Guardian is now asking the UK government to investigate Google over its Google News product, specifically claiming that Google gets too much benefit from its content. Of course, there's a simple solution to this: take your news off of Google News (or take it offline altogether). But The Guardian doesn't want to do that.

The reasoning is a bit convoluted, but, basically The Guardian says that since the online ad market is tough right now, it can't make enough money on the traffic that Google sends it. So stop accepting traffic from Google, right? No, it can't do that, because then competitors like the BBC would sweep up all of the traffic.

Is it just me, or does this reasoning suggest that The Guardian should be asking the government not to investigate Google News, but the BBC for representing unfair competition? The Guardian's reasoning here is a bit tortured. It seems to be saying it can't compete with other sources due to Google News... even though those other sources have the exact same issue (getting traffic from Google News). It's only real complaint is that the BBC offers its content for free online -- and (though it doesn't appear to explicitly call this out), the BBC is publicly funded and doesn't have to focus on ad revenue like The Guardian does. So why isn't the complaint against the BBC instead of Google News?

The Guardian always struck me as a pretty good paper, but the logic here is hard to understand. If it doesn't want the traffic, fine, don't take it (though, most people recognize that would be a mistake). If the problem is that it can't monetize the content effectively, then that's a business model problem for The Guardian -- not Google News. Finally, if the problem is (as it appears) competition from the BBC, then take it up with the BBC or those who fund it, but don't misplace the blame on Google News.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Did The BBC Break The Law By Exposing Botnets?

Carlo Longino — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 22:09:00 PDT

A TV show on the BBC is highlighting the ongoing problem of botnets -- by acquiring one of its own and using other people's computers in it to mount a DDOS attack on a security company's web site. The BBC says it had the security company's approval to do so, and that it didn't have any criminal intent, making its action legal. But some people aren't so sure, and say that intent doesn't offer a way out under British computer law. A tech lawyer says it's unlikely the broadcaster will face prosecution because there wasn't any real harm done, but those whose computers were used in the attack might disagree and view the methods used to make a point about computer security as a bit extreme.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Piracy Saves Another Lost Video

Mike Masnick — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 18:08:00 PST

We've talked about how "piracy" ended up saving the "lost" ending to the movie Little Shop of Horrors, and now it looks like something similar has happened over in the UK. As a bunch of readers have sent in, apparently the BBC, in an effort to save archival space, had gotten rid of some old television shows. In one case, the BBC had discarded both the color version of a show and the audio track, but the show's presenter had made his own audio recordings and, when synched up with the TV show -- and then colorized -- the BBC could bring it back close to what it once was. Yet, as TorrentFreak notes, this was basically "pirated" audio. But, once again, such things are turning out to be quite useful as an alternative for storage.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BBC's Magic TV Detector Vans Kept Secret

Mike Masnick — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 18:30:00 PDT

As many of you probably know (especially if you live in the UK), you have to buy a license to have a TV (or even a TV tuner card for a computer). The license fees go to pay the BBC to operate. Apparently, the BBC has some secret "TV detector" vans that can sit outside your house and determine if you have an illegal TV (I only wish I were making this up). Someone filed a Freedom of Information request to find out how these supposed detector vans worked, but the request has been denied, and these magic detector vans shall remain a state secret. The BBC claimed that it could not reveal the details of the van "because if it did so it would damage the public's perception of the effectiveness of TV detector vans." I'm not sure, but I think that statement alone destroys the public's perception of the effectiveness of the TV detector vans. I'm guessing that the vans are totally empty but someone drives by your place at night and looks for the flickering glow.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BBC And IBM Reinvent The Music Chart

Mike Masnick — Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:34:32 PDT

The idea of the "Top 40" music hit seems like a relic of a different age, and the Billboard best sellers list hasn't done much to really update with the times. However, reader Will North writes in to point us to a rather interesting experiment being done by the BBC and IBM to basically reinvent the concept of the music chart with a beta test of a new offering called Sound Index.

Rather than just checking on sales at certain shops which (as Will notes in his submission) can be easily gamed, Sound Index tries to look at a variety of online sources to find out what music people are really interested in:

"Crawls some of the biggest music sites on the Internet - Bebo, MySpace, Last.FM, iTunes, Google and YouTube - to find out what people are writing about, listening to, watching, downloading and logging on to. It then counts and analyses this data to make an instant list of the most popular 1000 artists and tracks on the web. The more blog mentions, comments, plays, downloads and profile views an artist or track has, the higher up the Sound Index they are."

In other words, they're reinventing the music charts, but making it much more accurate and relevant. But it doesn't stop there, either. Rather than assuming there's just one single chart to rule them all, the system lets you create custom lists for a better understanding of more niche-targeted music. So, say, if you wanted to know who's hot on YouTube and Last.fm in the indie and punk worlds among US listeners between the ages of 20 and 30, you can create just that list. Or, as per Will's suggestion, you could find out what female Emo fans between the age of 15 and 20 are talking about on Bebo -- and get that list.

It does seem a little limited right now, but it's definitely a step up from the lists you normally see these days, and shows that niche appeal can actually be worth something these days. That's a big deal, because the believers in old time copyright insist that with more file sharing and such, only "mass market" music will survive. Instead, the opposite seems to be happening, as it's easier than ever (often by leveraging such tools) for more targeted niche music to create a modest success by being tremendously successful within its own niche. Tools like Sound Index should make it easier to get even more recognition of success in those niches.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BBC Upset That Fans Are Knitting Dr. Who Characters

Mike Masnick — Fri, 9 May 2008 19:33:00 PDT

While many people are familiar with copyright issues concerning things like music, movies and software online, there's another community that also has been quite active: the knitting community. For a few years now there's been an ongoing battle between hobbyist knitters who have uploaded patterns that others feel are infringing on their copyrights. Now it appears that issue is touching on the tech/sci-fi community as well. Boing Boing points us to the news that a fan of the famed BBC show Dr. Who had created some knitting patterns of his own that would enable anyone to knit various characters from the show. This isn't a case where he was uploading someone else's patterns -- but he had created his own. The BBC, however, flipped out and told him to remove all such knitting patterns as they infringed on the BBC's copyrights and trademarks. This seems like yet another case of overly aggressive enforcement of intellectual property rights because someone can, not because it's a good idea.

It's nearly impossible to see how a fan getting people to knit versions of Dr. Who characters somehow diminishes the rights of the BBC. All it's doing is enabling fans (who are also into knitting) to express their fandom. If anything, the BBC should be encouraging this kind of fan support, rather than trying to stifle it and shut it down. It's stunning that after all these years, people still don't realize that helping fans express their feelings towards something is a good thing, rather than infringement.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BBC To ISPs: Don't Traffic Shape Me, Bro

Mike Masnick — Fri, 4 Apr 2008 08:49:00 PDT

While there have been some complaints from ISPs about how much bandwidth the BBC's iPlayer offering takes up, the BBC is being rather aggressive in responding. mike allen writes in to let us know that the BBC has announced that it will publicly "name and shame" any ISP that tries to traffic shape in a way that harms its iPlayer offering. As the BBC's Ashley Highfield says: "Unlimited broadband should mean unlimited." He then goes on to suggest that other websites also agree to name and shame traffic shaping ISPs: "Content providers, if they find their content being specifically squeezed, shaped, or capped, could start to indicate on their sites which ISPs their content worked best on (and which to avoid)." Sounds reasonable enough. Of course, you might say that if all ISPs agree to traffic shape, then naming and shaming them won't do much good. But, if there's a truly competitive market, that would simply open up the opportunity for one ISP to publicly claim that it wasn't traffic shaping, and then happily watch customers come running.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

BBC Takes Six Months To Not Really Criticize Its WiFi Scaremongering Report

Mike Masnick — Mon, 3 Dec 2007 13:04:40 PST

You may recall that back in May the BBC's "Panorama" TV show was accused of running a scaremongering TV program about the supposed "dangers" of WiFi on children. There were numerous problems with the program, from bad science to bad reporting. You would think that the BBC might take those sorts of accusations seriously. Apparently, it was enough for the BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit to take a look at the issue. It took the ECU six months, but its report is out and it admits that Panorama made some mistakes, but really only cops to one particular mistake: that it presented the one dissenter on the program in a very biased light. It doesn't seem to say anything about the fact that a major source for the program happens to sell equipment designed to test how much "radiation" there is as well as products of questionable scientific value to "protect" you from such radiation (radiation protecting beekeeper hat anyone?). The whole thing was such a joke that even the kids in the school where some of the program was filmed pointed out how unscientific the experiment was. Unfortunately, the BBC doesn't seem to address any of that in its review of the program at all. Perhaps we'll need to wait another six months.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story