5 ms·

If the public pays for NPR, why doesn't the public own the output? ie, why no Creative Commons licensing? Plenty of stuff on the internet is free; NPR is not fr

If the public pays for NPR, why doesn't the public own the output? ie, why no Creative Commons licensing? Plenty of stuff on the internet is free; NPR is not free, we ALREADY paid for it. I would appreciate comments about the Creative Commons aspect of this, not quibbles about line items in the budget.

intopieces 11y ago
How about you take a look at their current licensing terms [0], which seem reasonable to me, and tell us what you think Creative Commons would accomplish for NPR and the public? It might go a long way in answering your question. [0]http://www.npr.org/about-npr/179881519/rights-and-permissions-information http://www.npr.org/about-npr/179881519/rights-and-permission...
ceejayoz 11y ago
For the most part, "the public" (i.e. taxpayers) doesn't fund NPR. NPR receives no direct federal funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding
- meric 11y ago
  If NPR is owned by the government, and it's self-funded, then it's funded by taxpayers too. You own the company, you control the intellectual property it generates, even if the company is "self-funded".
  - burkaman 11y ago
    It isn't owned by the government, and it isn't self-funded.
- sheepleherd 11y ago
  You are making a strawman argument, I didn't say "the public" meant taxpayers, I was talking about the "the public" in National "public" Radio and the "public" Broadcasting System, and the federally funded Corporation for "public" Broadcasting. And in any case, your clarification is baloney, you are either being fooled by NPR's accounting sleights of hand, or you are helping to propagandize it. Federal money does in fact flow through public broadcasting's network of "shell" companies such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to local stations to and then to NPR. Here is an article on PBS.org about Congress potentially cutting funding to NPR. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/us-house-votes-to-cut-npr-funding/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/us-house-votes-to-cut-np... Yes, that was 2011, but the same baloney about NPR not receiving direct federal funding was the story back then too. In any case, my argument that the works of public broadcasting belong under a creative commons license is referring to the same public that the stations bray about endlessly, "you the listener".
  - ceejayoz 11y ago
    > According to the 2009 financial statement, about 50% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations for programming and distribution charges. Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities. While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues. So, still a small (10%ish) portion of their budget even if you count the government/CPB-derived portion of the revenue from member stations. If a small amount of federal funding meant they had to make everything public domain, they'd probably just give up that funding and make some cuts. No one wins there, IMO.
    - sheepleherd 11y ago
      again, I am NOT and never was making an argument about federal funding. You are. I'm talking about the public who is according to public broadcasting the biggest portion of their support.
      - ceejayoz 11y ago
        "The public" funds McDonalds, then. My buying a hamburger doesn't mean I get the rights to the McDonalds trademark. People donate to NPR of their own free will with the complete understanding that they're doing it as a donation, not as a "make our content public domain" licensing agreement. A pledge drive donation isn't a purchase, you haven't paid for anything, for the same reasons donating to Obama's campaign didn't buy you a night in the Lincoln Bedroom.
        sheepleherd 11y ago
        You are not coming close to understanding what I'm saying. I don't think it's instructive to compare public broadcasting with McDonalds (a for profit company), I'd compare them to Wikipedia. Wikipedia goes to great pains to maintain NPOV, and they give away their information product. I think public broadcasting should be more like Wikipedia; Wikipedia sets a higher standard for operating in the public interest.

intopieces 11y ago

How about you take a look at their current licensing terms [0], which seem reasonable to me, and tell us what you think Creative Commons would accomplish for NPR and the public? It might go a long way in answering your question. [0]http://www.npr.org/about-npr/179881519/rights-and-permissions-information http://www.npr.org/about-npr/179881519/rights-and-permission...

ceejayoz 11y ago

For the most part, "the public" (i.e. taxpayers) doesn't fund NPR. NPR receives no direct federal funding. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NPR#Funding

meric 11y ago
If NPR is owned by the government, and it's self-funded, then it's funded by taxpayers too. You own the company, you control the intellectual property it generates, even if the company is "self-funded".
- burkaman 11y ago
  It isn't owned by the government, and it isn't self-funded.
sheepleherd 11y ago
You are making a strawman argument, I didn't say "the public" meant taxpayers, I was talking about the "the public" in National "public" Radio and the "public" Broadcasting System, and the federally funded Corporation for "public" Broadcasting. And in any case, your clarification is baloney, you are either being fooled by NPR's accounting sleights of hand, or you are helping to propagandize it. Federal money does in fact flow through public broadcasting's network of "shell" companies such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to local stations to and then to NPR. Here is an article on PBS.org about Congress potentially cutting funding to NPR. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/us-house-votes-to-cut-npr-funding/ http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/us-house-votes-to-cut-np... Yes, that was 2011, but the same baloney about NPR not receiving direct federal funding was the story back then too. In any case, my argument that the works of public broadcasting belong under a creative commons license is referring to the same public that the stations bray about endlessly, "you the listener".
- ceejayoz 11y ago
  > According to the 2009 financial statement, about 50% of NPR revenues come from the fees it charges member stations for programming and distribution charges. Typically, NPR member stations receive funds through on-air pledge drives, corporate underwriting, state and local governments, educational institutions, and the federally funded Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). In 2009, member stations derived 6% of their revenue from federal, state and local government funding, 10% of their revenue from CPB grants, and 14% of their revenue from universities. While NPR does not receive any direct federal funding, it does receive a small number of competitive grants from CPB and federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Department of Commerce. This funding amounts to approximately 2% of NPR's overall revenues. So, still a small (10%ish) portion of their budget even if you count the government/CPB-derived portion of the revenue from member stations. If a small amount of federal funding meant they had to make everything public domain, they'd probably just give up that funding and make some cuts. No one wins there, IMO.
  - sheepleherd 11y ago
    again, I am NOT and never was making an argument about federal funding. You are. I'm talking about the public who is according to public broadcasting the biggest portion of their support.
    - ceejayoz 11y ago
      "The public" funds McDonalds, then. My buying a hamburger doesn't mean I get the rights to the McDonalds trademark. People donate to NPR of their own free will with the complete understanding that they're doing it as a donation, not as a "make our content public domain" licensing agreement. A pledge drive donation isn't a purchase, you haven't paid for anything, for the same reasons donating to Obama's campaign didn't buy you a night in the Lincoln Bedroom.
      - sheepleherd 11y ago
        You are not coming close to understanding what I'm saying. I don't think it's instructive to compare public broadcasting with McDonalds (a for profit company), I'd compare them to Wikipedia. Wikipedia goes to great pains to maintain NPOV, and they give away their information product. I think public broadcasting should be more like Wikipedia; Wikipedia sets a higher standard for operating in the public interest.