4 ms·

(if you're in the United States) Amazing that PBS is locking down their videos. They're public television fer cryin' out loud.

xxpor 16y ago
So is the BBC.
- jasonkester 16y ago
  Not in the same way. PBS never plays commercials and actually takes several days off each year to ask people to donate money so that they can continue broadcasting. It genuinely is supported by individual donations. Showing their programs to a wider audience could only result in more people donating to them.
  - Bud 16y ago
    You've market-tested this approach to fund-raising for a non-profit, then, I assume?
    - ugh 16y ago
      How much more does it cost them to make their content available worldwide? Couldn’t they upload everything to YouTube and let Google foot the bill? (Which Google would gladly do.) I don’t know whether more people would donate if they made their content available worldwide but if such a move wouldn’t cost them anything or nearly nothing there certainly wouldn’t be any harm in doing so.
      - metageek 16y ago
        Mmm. They could try it; but the only shows for which it would be easy to try it would be those for which they own the copyright. I don't know whether that would be a representative sample.
  - ajays 16y ago
    "PBS never plays commercials..." Have you watched KQED (PBS affiliate in the Bay Area) recently? It's filled with commercials! HHMI, Subaru, etc. Not just static images; video commercials, just like you see in other channels. I wonder what sets PBS apart now (except for the pledge drive) ?
Xpirate 16y ago
What's amazing to me is NPR, PBS, CBC and BBC haven't gotten together to make their own public domain codecs. It's kind of their job to do this stuff. I guess if you take contributions from "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation", you got make some compromises.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  What about Dirac? It's for archive purposes, but still a public domain codec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_(codec) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_(codec) Furthermore, the insinuation at the end is uncalled for. Calling for cutting funding of public radio/tv is already a political talking point (at least in regards to cutting BBC), so can you imagine the heat they'd catch for trying to develop codecs as well? Edit: removed PBS from list of cutting funding. Forgot they're donation supported.
ck2 16y ago
PBS is basically "owned" by the corporations that advertise now in front of every show. Congress keeps cutting back their funding and viewer donations are a fraction of their operating budget. In a few tiny ways their low budget is a good thing, ie. PBS Newshour doesn't have the insane stupid graphics/animations/toys that mainstream news does. But in almost every other way their low budget in ruining the experience now.
smackfu 16y ago
You still have regional concerns. Some are purchased from the BBC (like some episode of Horizon or Imagine) or are co-funded (like the Earth series). Those contracts will only allow viewing in the US.

xxpor 16y ago

So is the BBC.

jasonkester 16y ago
Not in the same way. PBS never plays commercials and actually takes several days off each year to ask people to donate money so that they can continue broadcasting. It genuinely is supported by individual donations. Showing their programs to a wider audience could only result in more people donating to them.
- Bud 16y ago
  You've market-tested this approach to fund-raising for a non-profit, then, I assume?
  - ugh 16y ago
    How much more does it cost them to make their content available worldwide? Couldn’t they upload everything to YouTube and let Google foot the bill? (Which Google would gladly do.) I don’t know whether more people would donate if they made their content available worldwide but if such a move wouldn’t cost them anything or nearly nothing there certainly wouldn’t be any harm in doing so.
    - metageek 16y ago
      Mmm. They could try it; but the only shows for which it would be easy to try it would be those for which they own the copyright. I don't know whether that would be a representative sample.
- ajays 16y ago
  "PBS never plays commercials..." Have you watched KQED (PBS affiliate in the Bay Area) recently? It's filled with commercials! HHMI, Subaru, etc. Not just static images; video commercials, just like you see in other channels. I wonder what sets PBS apart now (except for the pledge drive) ?

Xpirate 16y ago

What's amazing to me is NPR, PBS, CBC and BBC haven't gotten together to make their own public domain codecs. It's kind of their job to do this stuff. I guess if you take contributions from "The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation", you got make some compromises.

jokermatt999 16y ago
What about Dirac? It's for archive purposes, but still a public domain codec. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_(codec) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_(codec) Furthermore, the insinuation at the end is uncalled for. Calling for cutting funding of public radio/tv is already a political talking point (at least in regards to cutting BBC), so can you imagine the heat they'd catch for trying to develop codecs as well? Edit: removed PBS from list of cutting funding. Forgot they're donation supported.

ck2 16y ago

PBS is basically "owned" by the corporations that advertise now in front of every show. Congress keeps cutting back their funding and viewer donations are a fraction of their operating budget. In a few tiny ways their low budget is a good thing, ie. PBS Newshour doesn't have the insane stupid graphics/animations/toys that mainstream news does. But in almost every other way their low budget in ruining the experience now.

smackfu 16y ago

You still have regional concerns. Some are purchased from the BBC (like some episode of Horizon or Imagine) or are co-funded (like the Earth series). Those contracts will only allow viewing in the US.