Copyrights and wrongs
Often, when those contracts were drawn up, there was a concept of “residuals” - fees which are paid when something is broadcast, each time. Some people object to this as a matter of principle, but many people in creative industries are poorly paid, and residual fees are a vital part of making up for poor up-front payments.
In some cases, too – and increasingly now – the BBC may not even own all the rights to the programmes that it has broadcast. Programmes that you may think are indelibly linked with the BBC, like Spooks, are not actually made by it. They are made on its behalf by production companies – and those companies own some of the rights. That’s one reason why shows aren’t always available on iPlayer. And these reasons are why we don’t really own the content ourselves, no matter how many years we’ve paid the licence fee.
So, even when the BBC does provide downloads of material from the archives, it’s not free of cost. There may be a whole raft of different fees that have to be paid to people, and time spent negotiating those fees in the case of programmes made so long ago that none of this had ever been thought of.
Format shifting and infrastructure
There’s something else to remember too. While a lot of the programmes in the BBC archive have already been converted into formats suitable for online delivery, so that stores like iTunes can sell them, many more have not. Some will be in other digital formats, while others may still be on analogue media that has yet to be digitised.
That takes time. In the case of some older material, it will also require many hours of restoration, as has been done with many Doctor Who stories.
Then there’s the delivery infrastructure. If Project Barcelona takes off, it will require a huge infrastructure of servers and bandwidth to deliver material, all of which has to be paid for.
If you really want BBC content to be available for download free, “because I’ve paid the licence fee”, then I’d argue that what you’re actually arguing is that the BBC ignore any rights other people may have in that content; and that it fund the digitisation of material and provide the download infrastructure out of the current licence fee.
And that, ultimately, means that there will be less money to spend on commissioning new programmes. People complain enough about repeats as it is. Do you really want to force more cost cutting, so that you can download programmes free, and in the process urge the BBC to ignore its contractual obligations?
I hope that, when it comes to thinking of it like that, most people will realise that it’s not really a practical proposition for the BBC to give free access to the archives – certainly not if we want them to continue to be able to attract creative people to work for them, and to have money for the new material that results. ®
A longer, unedited Director's Cut version of this article can be found on Nigel's Gone Digital blog. Copyright © 2012, Nigel Whitfield.
WTF... should I pay to download BBC shows?
Re: "[We must fleece customers...
Look at it this way - you can either pay a token sum to see something that's in the BBC archives, or you can not pay anything and leave the stuff to rot in there. The BBC license covers the commissioning and broadcasting, it never covered (or was intended to cover) digital remastering, storage, indexing and downloading, simply because a vast percentage of the BBC archives was created in an era when download distribution was not feasible, or not even thinkable, or indeed before digital.
I think it's fair enough to ask punters to pay for the material just as long as it's priced at cost. (Taking into account initial cost of the infrastructure, ongoing maintenance and updates etc) .
Re: A new start
You appear to have missed the reality that most of what used to be BBC Technology, BBC R+D, BBC Transmission, etc has already been Bangalored to the likes of Siemens, Arqiva, etc.
Efficiency and cost-effectiveness left the BBC when Blair's "special adviser" Birt moved in as DG. Cronyism and OTT expenses took over (as any Private Eye reader will know), and it will take a long time (if it's even going to be possible) for the BBC to recover the breadth and quality of programming which the Birt era replaced with overpriced formulaic "producer choice" dross.
Nice straw man you're arguing with there, Spotfist. This isn't about making people play for the current iPlayer content, it is about offering archive material online.
(I appreciate that you would have needed to actually read the article to grasp this terribly subtle point.)
the rational 99% of the population (that's those who actually buy stuff at the moment) will cough up for programs they want in the same way they are now prepared to buy BBC DVDs. As long as the price is reasonable and the selection good.
The mentioned poll only has 145 votes so far, and like this forum, I suspect those voting are far from typical of the average digital content consumer.
If the idea of the BBC selling archive content offends you that much...don't buy it.
How about a mixed model...
We charge foreigners and use the money to fund it being free for us.