5 ms·

Wouldn't it make sense for the BBC to sell their service to people outside of the UK? Aren't they allowed to? Or do they already?

ucaetano 10y ago
They do that already, through licensing.
- dceddia 10y ago
  To individuals, though? Licensing works great if some big company deems it profitable enough to license the show I want to watch, but isn't a full solution otherwise.
  - ucaetano 10y ago
    Sure, but does the additional cost of licensing to individuals make economic sense? It almost sounds as if people want companies to be forced to make their content available at a desirable price to anyone in the planet, no matter the cost of it. In other words, people are talking as if they have the "right" to see that content.
    - Karunamon 10y ago
      Rather, when dealing with post-scarcity goods, the seller has two, and only two options: Monetize the people that are getting that content, or spend money and resource playing pirate whackamole. One of these two things makes money. We're halfway through the 2010s, if a random web developer can paywall content and take money for access in hours, then the BBC can manage. I want to give them money. They won't let me. Their loss. My conscience is clear when I watch Countdown through a UK proxy.
      - 794CD01 10y ago
        Both make money. If the second option didn't, as you disingenuously imply, they wouldn't be trying to stop the piracy.
        Karunamon 10y ago
        That implies a rational business. Rationally, new content ends up on the internet, unencrypted, within minutes of air, and all the whackamole in the world doesn't change that. All the anti-piracy methods practiced by major content providers is inherently irrational.
        Fargren 10y ago
        Not all of them. The ones that convince people that piracy is immoral may actually get some people to buy content.
        794CD01 10y ago
        That argument is asinine. Murder happens even though we outlaw it and enforce the law. That doesn't make the law ineffectual or "irrational".
        Karunamon 10y ago
        ...Please try to understand how "asinine" a comparison between copyright infringement and murder is.
        794CD01 10y ago
        Or maybe you should understand the point of the comparison. If it truly makes you feel better, pretend I said speeding.
joaorj 10y ago
I don't think it makes sense to force business plans on companies.
- mynameismonkey 10y ago
  BBC isn't a company in the traditional sense, it's a public service established by charter. The UK can and does "force" it to do many things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Charter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Charter
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  I don't think it makes sense to force business plans on companies. And yet we've done it multiple times in the US. We routinely encounter situations in the media industry where a new medium is hated/feared by the entrenched players who try to use refusal to license content as a way to kill the new medium before it takes off. Up until very recently, the standard solution to this, in order to not have artifically-granted monopolies on content stifle technological innovation, was for Congress to impose mandatory licensing schemes on the copyright holders. That's how cable TV originally got off the ground, for example; over-the-air broadcast networks didn't want to license their content to cable, but Congress imposed mandatory licensing on them. Result: brand-new multi-billion-dollar industry that kept those networks alive a while longer.

ucaetano 10y ago

They do that already, through licensing.

dceddia 10y ago
To individuals, though? Licensing works great if some big company deems it profitable enough to license the show I want to watch, but isn't a full solution otherwise.
- ucaetano 10y ago
  Sure, but does the additional cost of licensing to individuals make economic sense? It almost sounds as if people want companies to be forced to make their content available at a desirable price to anyone in the planet, no matter the cost of it. In other words, people are talking as if they have the "right" to see that content.
  - Karunamon 10y ago
    Rather, when dealing with post-scarcity goods, the seller has two, and only two options: Monetize the people that are getting that content, or spend money and resource playing pirate whackamole. One of these two things makes money. We're halfway through the 2010s, if a random web developer can paywall content and take money for access in hours, then the BBC can manage. I want to give them money. They won't let me. Their loss. My conscience is clear when I watch Countdown through a UK proxy.
    - 794CD01 10y ago
      Both make money. If the second option didn't, as you disingenuously imply, they wouldn't be trying to stop the piracy.
      - Karunamon 10y ago
        That implies a rational business. Rationally, new content ends up on the internet, unencrypted, within minutes of air, and all the whackamole in the world doesn't change that. All the anti-piracy methods practiced by major content providers is inherently irrational.
        Fargren 10y ago
        Not all of them. The ones that convince people that piracy is immoral may actually get some people to buy content.
        794CD01 10y ago
        That argument is asinine. Murder happens even though we outlaw it and enforce the law. That doesn't make the law ineffectual or "irrational".
        Karunamon 10y ago
        ...Please try to understand how "asinine" a comparison between copyright infringement and murder is.
        794CD01 10y ago
        Or maybe you should understand the point of the comparison. If it truly makes you feel better, pretend I said speeding.

joaorj 10y ago

I don't think it makes sense to force business plans on companies.

mynameismonkey 10y ago
BBC isn't a company in the traditional sense, it's a public service established by charter. The UK can and does "force" it to do many things. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Charter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC#Charter
ubernostrum 10y ago
I don't think it makes sense to force business plans on companies. And yet we've done it multiple times in the US. We routinely encounter situations in the media industry where a new medium is hated/feared by the entrenched players who try to use refusal to license content as a way to kill the new medium before it takes off. Up until very recently, the standard solution to this, in order to not have artifically-granted monopolies on content stifle technological innovation, was for Congress to impose mandatory licensing schemes on the copyright holders. That's how cable TV originally got off the ground, for example; over-the-air broadcast networks didn't want to license their content to cable, but Congress imposed mandatory licensing on them. Result: brand-new multi-billion-dollar industry that kept those networks alive a while longer.