iPlayer Day: The Director's Cut
We've just managed to crawl out from beneath the mountain of content we published on %3Ca%20href="https://bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/iplayer_day/">iPlayer Day. We hope you enjoyed reading.
We didn't even manage to get through everything, so here's a little more content to digest.
Our friends over at %3Ca%20href="https://bbc.co.uk/radio1">Radio 1 sent over these pictures of themselves enjoying iPlayer. We're relieved to see they weren't being too self-indulgent and listening to their own shows!
%3Ca%20href="%3Ca%20href="https://flickr.com/photos/33302558@N06/3102095655/in/pool-iplayerday" title="edith by bbccouk, on Flickr">
%3Ca%20href="/radio1/edithbowman/">Edith Bowman takes some time out from her show to catch some of the %3Ca%20href="/6music/shows/adamandjoe/">Adam and Joe show.
%3Ca%20href="https://flickr.com/photos/33302558@N06/3102094991/in/pool-iplayerday/" title="scottmills by bbccouk, on Flickr">
%3Ca%20href="https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fradio1%2Fscottmills%2F&ei=iWtGSfWOH8aI-gbyw5y8Aw&usg=AFQjCNF4nCAeQruurOZcZQyxzlQLCEBwKA&sig2=sc0BwG3ElX9Tg-XvpGQFzQ">Scott Mills catches up on %3Ca%20href="/radio1/kissysellout/">Kissy Sell Out's show via iPlayer on his iPhone.
%3Ca%20href="https://flickr.com/photos/33302558@N06/3102096385/in/pool-iplayerday" title="huwstephens by bbccouk, on Flickr">
And %3Ca%20href="/radio1/huwstephens/">Huw Stephens listens to the Rob da Bank show on iPlayer.
Elsewhere, our resident blogger %3Ca%20href="https://www.commonplatform.co.uk">Steve Bowbrick has the felt-tips out again, and offers five thoughts on opening up the iPlayer:
%3Ca%20href="https://flickr.com/photos/bbccouk/3110698034/" title="5 iPlayer things by bbccouk, on Flickr">
And, finally, proof (if proof be needed) that iPlayer staff can be fashionable and a bit cool, we'd like to show off the iPlayer house band picture desk team:
%3Ca%20href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/bbccouk/3109881219/" title="iPlayer Picture Desk team by bbccouk, on Flickr">
Dave Lee is co-editor, 大象传媒 Internet Blog.
Comments %3Ca%20href="#postcomment" title="Skip to post a comment form" accesskey="8" class="dna-commentbox-logged-in dna-commentbox-add-comment-cta"style="display: none;">Post your comment
%3Ca%20href="https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/users/signin?target_resource=comment&ptrt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-sis.bbc.net.uk%2Fblogs%2Fbbcinternet%2F2008%2F12%2Fiplayer_day_the_directors_cut.html#comments" class="identity-login">Sign in or %3Ca%20href="https://ssl.bbc.co.uk/users/register?target_resource=comment&ptrt=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-sis.bbc.net.uk%2Fblogs%2Fbbcinternet%2F2008%2F12%2Fiplayer_day_the_directors_cut.html%23comments">register to comment.
Comment number 1.
At 15th Dec 2008, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=815970" class="comment_username_317">The Phazer wrote:Steve Bowbrick's definition of "bugger all" must differ greatly from mine, given it would cost more than the entire revenue of the licence fee to get rights to serve iPlayer overseas.
And remind me again why we'd want iPlayer's search (and bandwidth) eaten by hundreds of thousands of rubbish amateur clips at great cost to the taxpayer? If I wanted to go and watch god-awful rubbish YouTube already exists.
Phazer
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73123914&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 15th Dec 2008, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=11758580" class="comment_username_242305">Michael Walsh wrote:Phazer,
re: "And remind me again why we'd want iPlayer's search (and bandwidth) eaten by hundreds of thousands of rubbish amateur clips at great cost to the taxpayer?"
iPlayer is the name for the online digital service (same as DTT is the name for the over-the-air transmission of the digital signal).
Do I take it, from your stance, that the part of a service which people find objectionable is a legitimate reason to question the funding of it?
If so, that's a very dangerous road to be putting the 大象传媒 on.
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73128708&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 15th Dec 2008, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=209627" class="comment_username_38713">Steve Bowbrick wrote:Ah Mr @Phazer, we've been expecting you...
The number of 大象传媒 shows that genuinely couldn't be shown abroad because of rights issues could probably be counted on the fingers of two or three hands (maybe four). The vast bulk of outstanding 大象传媒 TV and radio could be liberated for foreign consumption at very little cost to the licence fee-payer (and, while we're on the topic, the additional cost probably ought to be met by the Foreign Office).
You're making the very common mistake of confusing the 大象传媒's primetime entertainment output with the generality of its output, most of which is blissfully unencumbered by territorial rights (or could be rendered unencumbered very easily if the will to do so existed). It is almost certainly the case that Strictly Come Dancing shall remain forever a pleasure to be enjoyed by we Brits alone. This marvelous documentary %3Ca%20href="https://tinyurl.com/Sighthill">https://tinyurl.com/Sighthill, on the other hand (to pick one of dozens on the iPlayer right now), could and should be available worldwide - to the credit of its creators, the 大象传媒 and the Nation.
On your second point, if, by "rubbish amateur clips" you mean the output of the British Library, the National Museums, the Open University, art galleries, publishers, the nation's schools and colleges, youth clubs and societies, charities, independent educational trusts, women's institutes, libraries and arts organisations and... you get my point... then I say BRING ON THE RUBBISH AMATEUR CLIPS!
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73129370&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 15th Dec 2008, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=13638099" class="comment_username_224303">Tiggs wrote:In contrast, I believe that opening iPlayer internationally is the only way, short of simultaneous broadcasts of all TV content, of actually combatting online piracy.
There are large gorups of fans of various shows (such as Doctor Who) who only download it via P2P because there is no official way of watching the show in their country *at the time of original broadcast*.
The buy the DVDs. The buy the tie-in merchandise. They would probably pay to subscribe to an international iPlayer. They are willing to (and prove it at DVD release days) pay to watch 大象传媒 content. Only using Bit Torrent when there is no other way to watch it fresh.
And yes, watching shows on their original release dates (or close to such) is a bigger deal to fans of shows than the various media companies worldwide would like. But owing to communications nature of the internet, it is now possible to discuss things in real time with people across the globe. (Which I do, on a regular basis. In groups where most of the contributors are outside the UK. But, to me, this is making me get the most out the the 大象传媒 content I watch and, hence, my License Fee)
Staggered releases are a thing of the past, because we're no longer ignorant of what's on in other countries.
I totally support my overseas friends' desire to watch 大象传媒 content on the same week as it's out here in the UK. As as a License Fee Payer, I'd personally prefer to be able to recommend them a legitimate alternative to the "Global Preview Network".
And something that not only the 大象传媒, but all content providers should take into account...
Overseas fans are actually a potential income stream. Not everyone who downloads is a wannabe-freeloader. I know I'd gladly pay to subscribe to an iPlayer-like service for the American SF shows I watch. If for no other reason than I'd be able to download shows I watch with no fear of being sued, and secure in the knowledge that I was putting my money where my mouth was. I often say I'd gladly pay for content that's simply not avialable at the right time. I'd like to be able to turn word to deed.
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73131238&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 16th Dec 2008, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=1661445" class="comment_username_16585">Neil Hoskins wrote:In what way, exactly, does it cost "bugger all" to serve content to the entire planet rather than just licence payers? Why are you giving airtime to somebody with such childish, innocent views? Please ignore him, accept my thanks for optimising the Wii feed, and now move on to downloading or side-loading onto my N95, please.
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73164348&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 16th Dec 2008, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=209627" class="comment_username_38713">Steve Bowbrick wrote:@neilhoskins Naive? I think it's a National embarrassment that the 大象传媒's outstanding public service content isn't visible to foreigners. Another fantastically-short-sighted legacy of the period of public service vandalism that reached its apogee during the 1990s (John Birt, the expansion of 大象传媒 Wordwide etc.). National prestige and the benefits that flow from it are not childish. Whereas worrying about getting the iPlayer on your Wii definitely is :->
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73167439&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)
Comment number 7.
At 16th Dec 2008, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=13638099" class="comment_username_224303">Tiggs wrote:As I said above, geographically restricting content is fast becoming obsolete - it's only the content providers who are desperately clinging on to the old methods.
Back when people simply didn't know about what was going on elsewhere, staggering releases was viable. Now, people are aware of the production schedules of productions anywhere in the world. When something arrives late in this country, or flat-out doesn't arrive, people are aware.
Companies have to keep up. People are no longer standing for geographical variations in releases.
And with technologies like iPlayer, things could finally reach a point where people could legitimately watch things on release-week without using P2P. (As I can guarantee that "waiting until local release" doesn't hold any water at all anymore...)
Make it subscription. Make it ad-supported. But one way or another, make it available and people will use it. People are crying out for a legitimate alternative. International iPlayer could provide it.
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73172716&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 7)
Comment number 8.
At 16th Dec 2008, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=12804312" class="comment_username_1005">Andrew wrote:I think Mr Bowbrick makes an excellent point. There are numerous truly public service programmes that the 大象传媒 makes that have little to no commercial value (i.e. to be sold to other broadcasters or released on DVD) outside of the UK, so why not make them available internationally?
Even better, why not release them under a Creative Commons-type licence so that once the programmes have been paid for by the licence-fee payers, they are available to all and sundry for free for ever? That would truly be public service broadcasting.
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73194657&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 8)
Comment number 9.
At 17th Dec 2008, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=11818211" class="comment_username_139036">_Ewan_ wrote:Steve Bowbrick is right about making the 大象传媒's own content available freely, but it's worth noting that there are some efforts to do that with the 大象传媒 Totem plugin[1], an effort completely separate from the iPlayer.
[1] %3Ca%20href="https://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2008/10/08/868/">https://blogs.gnome.org/uraeus/2008/10/08/868/
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73205144&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 9)
Comment number 10.
At 17th Dec 2008, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=209627" class="comment_username_38713">Steve Bowbrick wrote:Thanks @_Ewan_. The fascinating thing about Totem is the way it embodies a totally different way of thinking about the delivery of audio/video to PCs from that adopted in iPlayer. Totem is embedded in a couple of flavours of UNIX distribution (more to come) so although it's obviously an *application*, it's also an *operating system component*.
I'm no geek (just a wannabe) but I find it fascinating that such different concepts can co-exist. The two players live in totally different layers of the stack. It will be fascinating to see how both evolve and, for instance, whether iPlayer winds up moving down the stack into the OS (it's at least conceptually closer to the OS on a mobile, for instance).
With Canvas, of course, the 大象传媒 (and partners) plan a player architecture that is bonded to the OS and embedded in hardware - an even more radical (or perhaps retrograde - depends on your perspective) departure, and one that will no doubt be fraught with political difficulties... Totem should definitely be more widely understood and we should all keep an eye on it as a source of potential models for mainstream architectures in future.
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73226897&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 10)
Comment number 11.
At 17th Dec 2008, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=1661445" class="comment_username_16585">Neil Hoskins wrote:@bowbrick
You think that the iPlayer feed to the Wii is unimportant? That's very interesting, and I can only thank the $deity of HR that you don't work for the 大象传媒. The Wii is the best selling games console. It plugs into your telly, so you don't have to get your family sitting around the computer, or alternatively muck around with a TV-out connection on your computer, IF you have one.
Regarding your utopian wish to spread 大象传媒 joy and happiness to the world, I pay a licence fee, and I do not want the things it pays for to be given away to the rest of the world for free. I do not want the 大象传媒 to spend orders of magnitude more than they already are doing on more bandwidth and more servers in order to give away the stuff I've paid for to people who haven't paid for it.
Hopefully, the 大象传媒 are ignoring your strange logic, and so I shall not be debating this further.
Gordon Bennett.
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73234513&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 11)
Comment number 12.
At 27th Dec 2008, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=815970" class="comment_username_317">The Phazer wrote:Sorry for taking so long to reply to this.
鈥淭he number of 大象传媒 shows that genuinely couldn't be shown abroad because of rights issues could probably be counted on the fingers of two or three hands (maybe four).鈥
Sorry, but this is simply wrong. For a start, nothing with commercial music for television could be, without costing hundreds of millions of pounds alone. And that is very nearly everything the 大象传媒 transmits.
鈥(and, while we're on the topic, the additional cost probably ought to be met by the Foreign Office).鈥
Ahhahahahaha. That鈥檚 better than any Christmas jokes I got out of my cracker. This would cost more than the Foreign Office鈥檚 entire budget, even if we got rid of trifling things like embassies, when the World Service's budget is being cut in real terms.
鈥淵ou're making the very common mistake of confusing the 大象传媒's primetime entertainment output with the generality of its output, most of which is blissfully unencumbered by territorial rights.鈥
Quite the opposite.
鈥淭his marvelous documentary %3Ca%20href="https://tinyurl.com/Sighthill">https://tinyurl.com/Sighthill, on the other hand (to pick one of dozens on the iPlayer right now), could and should be available worldwide - to the credit of its creators, the 大象传媒 and the Nation.鈥
This is exactly my point. Sighthill is one of the most rights light programmes I鈥檝e ever seen. Certainly within the top 1% of rights free programming the 大象传媒 has (naughty Mr Bowbrick - the 大象传媒 broadcasts barely anything like this). And yet it has commercial music in the soundtrack. It鈥檚 director contract won鈥檛 be covered internationally. It contains stills which will only be licenced for the UK. It very likely has acquired footage, which again would only be licenced for the UK and would cost a fortune to acquire internationally. Who would check the trademark clearance for the title internationally? Who would co-ordinate all these international rights?
The likely cost of your 鈥渇ree鈥 international programme is probably 拢20,000 per episode. Just for that programme. And almost every other programme the 大象传媒 makes would be orders of magnitude more expensive.
鈥淥n your second point, if, by "rubbish amateur clips" you mean the output of the British Library, the National Museums, the Open University, art galleries, publishers, the nation's schools and colleges, youth clubs and societies, charities, independent educational trusts, women's institutes, libraries and arts organisations and... you get my point...鈥
I very much do. The British Library is fantastic at being librarians. They are not good at making television. It would very likely be totally unwatchable garbage, unless they brought in a professional television indie to make it for them. And if they did, they wouldn鈥檛 have the rights to give it away, and nor would they given most of our national museums stay in business by selling footage and pictures of their works to broadcasters for very large amounts of money.
In addition, if they want to put video on their own websites, it is far from clear to me as to why this should be funded from the licence fee. The licence fee is for making professional quality programming.
@andrew646 "I think Mr Bowbrick makes an excellent point. There are numerous truly public service programmes that the 大象传媒 makes that have little to no commercial value (i.e. to be sold to other broadcasters or released on DVD) outside of the UK, so why not make them available internationally?"
Because buying the music rights from the BPI etc etc etc would cost many millions of pounds.
Phazer
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73587635&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 12)
Comment number 13.
At 29th Dec 2009, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=11758580" class="comment_username_242305">Michael Walsh wrote:Phazer,
Re: The licence fee is for making professional quality programming.
Are you sure? According to the %3Ca%20href="https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/conditions.jsp">TV Licensing website :
What is a TV Licence needed for?
- To use any TV equipment such as a TV set, digital box, video or DVD recorder, computer or mobile phone to watch or record TV programmes as they are being shown on television.
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73625585&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 13)
Comment number 14.
At 29th Dec 2009, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=815970" class="comment_username_317">The Phazer wrote:And what does that have to do with the purpose of the licence fee?
If the public want to put up videos they can already do that from YouTube, without us spending a fortune in public money to replicate YouTube with a poorer search engine.
Meanwhile that money could be spent on the 大象传媒's fundamental USP - professional, highly researched, accountable content. That's the point in a licence fee when in web 2.0 user generated turds are everywhere for free.
Phazer
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73654325&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 14)
Comment number 15.
At 29th Dec 2009, %3Ca%20href="/blogs/profile.shtml?userid=11758580" class="comment_username_242305">Michael Walsh wrote:Professional highly researched, accountable content such as Two Pints Of Lager.../F... Off I'm A Hairy Woman/Horizon: Chimps Are People Too/Anything with Jonathan Ross/etc. are the kind of USPs that any broadcaster can pump out.
What's worse is that such drivel is mostly Indie produced - so all the 大象传媒 gets is the ignominious glory of commissioning and a certain number of broadcasts.
The purpose of the licence fee is for broadcasters to produce Public Service Programming (PSP) in return for granting them exclusive access to the spectrum.
What one considers PSP is subjective.
%3Ca%20href="/dna/blog101/comments/UserComplaintPage?hostsource=uk&PostID=73655892&s_start=1" class="popup">Complain about this comment (Comment number 15)