6 ms·

> The Sound Effects are BBC copyright, but they may be used for personal, educational or research purposes, as detailed in the license[1]. So for commercial pu

> The Sound Effects are BBC copyright, but they may be used for personal, educational or research purposes, as detailed in the license[1]. So for commercial purposes you need to licence them, as described here[2]: > We provide various options from single downloads you choose ($5) to the entire library on hard drive ($1,995), to annual licensing for multi-user media production companies [1] http://bbcsfx.acropolis.org.uk/ http://bbcsfx.acropolis.org.uk/ [2] https://blog.prosoundeffects.com/how-to-license-bbc-sound-effects-to-use-in-your-commercial-productions https://blog.prosoundeffects.com/how-to-license-bbc-sound-ef...

bb123 6y ago
Does anyone with experience with this sort if thing know what kind of deal this is? It seems quite cheap.
- JdeBP 6y ago
  The deal differs from other sound libraries in that educational purposes are covered by a quite different licence to commercial purposes. This is reflective of the mandate of the Royal Charter that incorporates the BBC, that it "support learning". The various restrictions on endorsement and representation and suchlike in the RemArc licence reflect the Royal Charter's imposition that the BBC itself be non-commercial. You can compare the commercial licence with that of others for yourself. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24587496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24587496 for starters. Notice the sorts of terms that commercial sound libraries impose. Notice also that the commercial licence is not sold by the BBC. It is sold by a U.S. company named Pro Sound Effects. The Royal Charter prohibits for-profit activities by the BBC itself. So the profits from commercial licences are probably not going back to the BBC.
  - bb123 6y ago
    Thats very interesting, you seem to know a lot about how the BBC is structured. Do you mind if I ask how the for-profit prohibition of their charter aligns with the ad-supported international BBC News websites and broadcasts on BBC Worldwide?
    - JdeBP 6y ago
      I know as much as anyone else who has actually read the Royal Charter. (-: The Charter covers "UK Public Services" and the "World Service", as does the Agreement with the Minister of the Crown. The World Service is a specific thing, which you can read about for yourself. * So public service broadcasting to other countries isn't within the terms of the Charter. * Commercial activities are prohibited to the BBC itself. They are limited to commercial subsidiaries. The upshot of this is that services that you get outwith the U.K. are not from the BBC. They are from commercial subsidiary companies, such as BBC Studios for example, or from joint venture companies. BBC Studios is what broadcasts BBC content such as BBC America outwith the United Kingdom. Similarly, the WWW site that is served up to computers outwith the United Kingdom isn't provided by the BBC. It is provided by BBC Global News Ltd, another commercial subsidiary. It's quite different to the WWW site that is seen within the U.K.. The commercial subsidiaries aren't funded by the Licence Fee, and the BBC itself is not permitted to make a profit from its dealings with them, which must be "at arm's length" (to quote the Agreement). * https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/governance/charter https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/governance/charter
      - Ntrails 6y ago
        I'm missing something, obviously. I know the "commercial" BBC made a killing from Top Gear show sales to other regions, but surely the rights to sell it were not given to them for free by the nonprofit arm? If the license fee pays to make show x, who _eventually_ profits from the sale of x to the US?
        JdeBP 6y ago
        I've no idea where the profits made by the commercial subsidiaries eventually go, except that the BBC itself is not allowed to operate for profit. That said, you seem to be missing that giving something away for free and selling it for a profit are not exhaustive of the possibilities. (-:
        celticninja 6y ago
hnarn 6y ago
So the “available for download” part is at the very least bad phrasing and at worst potentially misleading. Obviously anything you pay for and license is “available for download”, but if it’s not free to use then what’s the point? If anything it should simply state that the effects are “available”, as in they are now available for purchase. Also, isn’t the BBC one of many publicly funded media outlets? It should at the very least be free to use for those who pay to keep the service alive, and ideally completely freely licensed as I think any public work should be.

bb123 6y ago

Does anyone with experience with this sort if thing know what kind of deal this is? It seems quite cheap.

JdeBP 6y ago
The deal differs from other sound libraries in that educational purposes are covered by a quite different licence to commercial purposes. This is reflective of the mandate of the Royal Charter that incorporates the BBC, that it "support learning". The various restrictions on endorsement and representation and suchlike in the RemArc licence reflect the Royal Charter's imposition that the BBC itself be non-commercial. You can compare the commercial licence with that of others for yourself. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24587496 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24587496 for starters. Notice the sorts of terms that commercial sound libraries impose. Notice also that the commercial licence is not sold by the BBC. It is sold by a U.S. company named Pro Sound Effects. The Royal Charter prohibits for-profit activities by the BBC itself. So the profits from commercial licences are probably not going back to the BBC.
- bb123 6y ago
  Thats very interesting, you seem to know a lot about how the BBC is structured. Do you mind if I ask how the for-profit prohibition of their charter aligns with the ad-supported international BBC News websites and broadcasts on BBC Worldwide?
  - JdeBP 6y ago
    I know as much as anyone else who has actually read the Royal Charter. (-: The Charter covers "UK Public Services" and the "World Service", as does the Agreement with the Minister of the Crown. The World Service is a specific thing, which you can read about for yourself. * So public service broadcasting to other countries isn't within the terms of the Charter. * Commercial activities are prohibited to the BBC itself. They are limited to commercial subsidiaries. The upshot of this is that services that you get outwith the U.K. are not from the BBC. They are from commercial subsidiary companies, such as BBC Studios for example, or from joint venture companies. BBC Studios is what broadcasts BBC content such as BBC America outwith the United Kingdom. Similarly, the WWW site that is served up to computers outwith the United Kingdom isn't provided by the BBC. It is provided by BBC Global News Ltd, another commercial subsidiary. It's quite different to the WWW site that is seen within the U.K.. The commercial subsidiaries aren't funded by the Licence Fee, and the BBC itself is not permitted to make a profit from its dealings with them, which must be "at arm's length" (to quote the Agreement). * https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/governance/charter https://www.bbc.co.uk/aboutthebbc/governance/charter
    - Ntrails 6y ago
      I'm missing something, obviously. I know the "commercial" BBC made a killing from Top Gear show sales to other regions, but surely the rights to sell it were not given to them for free by the nonprofit arm? If the license fee pays to make show x, who _eventually_ profits from the sale of x to the US?
      - JdeBP 6y ago
        I've no idea where the profits made by the commercial subsidiaries eventually go, except that the BBC itself is not allowed to operate for profit. That said, you seem to be missing that giving something away for free and selling it for a profit are not exhaustive of the possibilities. (-:
        celticninja 6y ago

hnarn 6y ago

So the “available for download” part is at the very least bad phrasing and at worst potentially misleading. Obviously anything you pay for and license is “available for download”, but if it’s not free to use then what’s the point? If anything it should simply state that the effects are “available”, as in they are now available for purchase. Also, isn’t the BBC one of many publicly funded media outlets? It should at the very least be free to use for those who pay to keep the service alive, and ideally completely freely licensed as I think any public work should be.