The Open Earth Archive

March 4, 2006 4:50 AM

The Natural World is yours to play with now courtesy of the BBC, but only if you live in the UK!

The BBC have released their wildlife archives as part of the Creative Archive Licence, including unseen clips from the new Planet Earth series.

Unfortunately, it's only available to those who live in the UK because "the member organisations who supply the content are funded with public money to serve the UK population."
posted by Nugget (35 comments total)

"Unfortunately, it's only available to those who live in the UK..."

...and, as such, is a lousy MeFi post.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:02 AM on March 4, 2006

well, not if someone can post a simple get-around-by-proxy workaround. anyone?
posted by jmccw at 5:15 AM on March 4, 2006

I love the BBC, but their policies of making content available only to people in the UK are pretty obnoxious, especially since many people elsewhere in the world, such as myself, have dual citizenship.
posted by insomnia_lj at 5:29 AM on March 4, 2006

...and, as such, is a lousy MeFi post.

Because it's aimed at Brits? Funny, that. I see plenty of exclusively American postings here, but I've yet to see a Brit (or anyone else for that matter) complain about that.

I love the BBC, but their policies of making content available only to people in the UK are pretty obnoxious, especially since many people elsewhere in the world, such as myself, have dual citizenship.

As I understand it, by 'public money' the BBC is referring to the licence fee. So if you don't pay for the British TV licence, then you're not entitled to view the content for free. Citizenship isn't anything to do with it. It's not perfect, a la Cory Doctorow's utopia, but it seems fair enough to me.
posted by macdara at 5:36 AM on March 4, 2006

On review, my interpretation of 'public money' was incorrect. (My bad for losing the run of myself.) But my point stands for programming produced by the BBC themselves.
posted by macdara at 5:38 AM on March 4, 2006

"Unfortunately, it's only available to those who live in the UK..."

...and, as such, is a fantastic MeFi post.
For me.

Cheers!
posted by slimepuppy at 5:46 AM on March 4, 2006

> well, not if someone can post a simple get-around-by-proxy workaround. anyone?

publicproxyservers.com

the first UK proxy on page 1 of the list works fine and not too slow either
posted by funambulist at 6:17 AM on March 4, 2006

...and, as such, is a lousy MeFi post.

Shame on you insomnia_lj. There are countless references to American laws, politicians, television shows, personalities, etc. that go right over the head of the average non American without the aid of a search engine but it's rare to see anyone complain, let alone write such a snarky comment.

FWIW, many (most?) license-paying Brits would be happy to "share" BBC content with the rest of the world.

And if it's any consolation, once the show has aired here I'm sure the dvd will be available for you to buy in the US - probably more cheaply than here in the UK.
posted by ceri richard at 6:31 AM on March 4, 2006

I'm in the UK, thanks for pointing this out... great post!
posted by BobsterLobster at 6:38 AM on March 4, 2006

I wonder how many posts would deserve comments along the lines of 'lousy post' because it could only be of interest to those in the US? Quite a few...
posted by BobsterLobster at 6:39 AM on March 4, 2006

I wonder how many posts would deserve comments along the lines of 'lousy post' because it could only be of interest to those in the US? Quite a few...

Or because its only of interest to lawyers, or biologists, or whatever. But to the people to whom it is directed it may be a fabulous post.

I think the BBC has every right to make stuff available only to the UK, and I think this is a good post.
posted by arcticwoman at 7:26 AM on March 4, 2006

Enjoyed the FPP Nugget, thanks. I live in NYC and when I tried to access the info just to see what happened, it blocked me with a form, which I filled out, giving BBC feedback that people outside of the UK might like to see/use the content too.

I enjoyed other areas of that BBC site though, like on The Human Body. Looking at the Human Brain Map , I liked what they said as neurological how-to for Happiness:

"Happiness is a combination of physical pleasure, not feeling negative and having a sense of purpose.

Your amygdala is responsible for generating negative emotions, this part of your brain must be kept quiet. Working on non-emotional mental tasks inhibits the amygdala, which is why keeping yourself busy can cheer you up when you’re feeling down.

Not feeling miserable is not enough to make you feel completely happy. You also need to feel a sense of purpose and meaning. This feeling requires activity in the front part of your frontal lobe (shown in yellow). People with depression have very little activity in this area of the brain.

The feeling of pleasure associated with happiness is caused by a brain chemical called dopamine. A simple thrill or the sight of a long lost love can trigger a rush of dopamine."
posted by nickyskye at 7:31 AM on March 4, 2006

Excellent.
posted by srboisvert at 7:47 AM on March 4, 2006

Nice post. Thanks, Nugget. Find proxy servers located in the UK here and here. The BBC site will block transparent proxies (spills your real IP) but doesn't block for HTTP_VIA or HTTP_FORWARDED_FOR. Check the environment variables before using at BBC here. There is a somewhat lengthly registration process once you're in before you can download, but well worth it.
posted by sluglicker at 7:54 AM on March 4, 2006

I love the BBC -- especially older stuff. I can understand their wanting to restrict content for those people who have paid for it, but why don't they let ME (in the US) pay for it? I would gladly pay a fee for access to their archive. And this would help them generate more revenue (which, having worked briefly at the BBC, I know they could use).
posted by grumblebee at 7:58 AM on March 4, 2006

Are there really US sites that restrict access to US citizens? Canadian sites that restrict access to Canadians, etc? Maybe so, but I think it would be obnoxious in all cases. This has nothing to do with making available content that is only of interest to certain groups, of course, a distinction that seems to have escaped several commenters.
posted by benjonson at 8:11 AM on March 4, 2006

I get that the Beeb needs to justify it's licence fee/tax. That's ok - it's good value for money: £125 p.a. gets me everything they broadcast.

But I don't see why they aren't allowed to make small charges to non-UKers, to cover cost of bandwidth etc, and spread their productions wider. I know - they're supposed to be non-commercial, but that doesn't stop 'em from being able to sell DVDs, as opposed to giving 'em away free to licence-fee payers.

That would allow UK subjects abroad, like Insomnia_lj, to contribute to the cost of running the corporation.

Great post, ta!
posted by dash_slot- at 8:13 AM on March 4, 2006

Are there really US sites that restrict access to US citizens?

Well there was the Bush site (for "security reasons") but the most annoying is the Showtime site - the shows (such as Weeds) are shown in the UK but not the website.
posted by ceri richard at 9:37 AM on March 4, 2006

um... sorry benjonson, I misread your question :-(
posted by ceri richard at 9:37 AM on March 4, 2006

Whatevet the BBC does, it's well done. Yeah, I adore BBC and Discovery and National Geographic and History Channel. Thank gawd Fox News shit has no effect on me.
posted by elpapacito at 9:55 AM on March 4, 2006

The BBC didn't always rely on such restrictions... they came in after the whole "dodgy dossier" fiasco, when the Blair government basically allowed the Conservatives and business interests to take a pound of flesh.

As for supporting the BBC in America, I already do. I watch BBC America, which boosts their ad ratings. I also donate to my local PBS station, which purchases a ton of shows from Lionheart, a subsidiary of the BBC which charges pretty exorbinant rates to PBS stations in order to carry BBC programming.

That said, if they needed to slap a banner ad on their site in order for me to use it, I would be okay with that.
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:10 AM on March 4, 2006

When I lived in the UK for several years I didn't have a TV and so didn't have to pay the License Fee. Didn't stop me listening to lots of BBC radio and and visiting BBC websites. They also broadcast the World Service explicitly intended for listeners outside the UK. Here in the US I can listen to a lot of recent radio output on the web with no restriction. Their web access rules make some sort of sense, I suppose, but to an outsider looking in, BBC access rules generally seem inconsistently applied and arbitrary. Like others, I'd happily pay something like an 'overseas subscription' for some of their content, or even tolerate a few ads.
posted by normy at 10:22 AM on March 4, 2006

It occurs to me that BBC America is probably also funded in part by my cable provider, and gets a bit of money out of my monthly cable bill, too. Multiply that by tens of millions of American households who get the channel in their cable packages whether they watch it or not and we're talking real money for airing shows that have already been paid for.

And, of course, there's the DVD sales, which are also handled through BBC/Lionheart. I've got your complete collection of Monty Python right here, matey...
posted by insomnia_lj at 10:22 AM on March 4, 2006

macdara writes "I see plenty of exclusively American postings here, but I've yet to see a Brit (or anyone else for that matter) complain about that."

New here are you?

benjonson writes "Are there really US sites that restrict access to US citizens?"

Yes, for example the sites for the TV programs "Weeds" and "The L Word" is only available in the US.
posted by Mitheral at 10:46 AM on March 4, 2006

Isn't the day after transmission CBS, ABC, NBC, Fox, etc content via ITunes only for US?
posted by A189Nut at 10:47 AM on March 4, 2006

I am interested in this and yet the BBC is blocking me. So how can it possibly be a good post?
posted by smackfu at 12:52 PM on March 4, 2006

And they accuse the British of being a nation of moaners.
posted by asok at 3:01 PM on March 4, 2006

Jesus christ! What is wrong with you complainers? Find a way to get around the thing and stop bitching about how it's a bad post when it's obviously not. Way better than my last post. I'm going to try to get around this mothersucker.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 4:24 PM on March 4, 2006

but why don't they let ME (in the US) pay for it? I would gladly pay a fee for access to their archive.

the BBC Motion Gallery - The pro version (sort of). Admittedly the prices can be a bit steep if you're going public with it, but the watermarked QT clips are cheap for personal use and you can get them in HD!

also this ...

"Unfortunately, it's only available to those who live in the UK..." ... and, as such, is a lousy MeFi post.

is one of the dumbest things I've read in a long time, insomnia you almost deserve a forced time out for something that obnoxious. Even if you can't get access to the clips, it's an fascinating example of what's possible when a major media company doesn't lock up all it's content, perhaps you could discuss that instead.
posted by milovoo at 10:09 PM on March 4, 2006

benjonson writes "Are there really US sites that restrict access to US citizens?"

Well, the very first example I thought of was French In Action (although that allows Canadians too, apparently), and yes, there are many more.
posted by jacalata at 11:15 PM on March 4, 2006

And, being that I'm on my second day of vacationing in London at the moment, I'll note that the UK is far more generous than not, along these lines. I've yet to pay for a museum here -- given the inflated prices of everything here (with the exception of cigarettes, which are in line with Boston), surely the cost of my art appreciation would have rivaled my hotel bill by now if the circumstances were different.
posted by VulcanMike at 1:39 PM on March 5, 2006

Did anyone watch it? I just saw the first episode on the beeb and the footage is incredible... I came here hoping people would be discussing the programme. Instead, they're arguing over whether it's a good post or not. Ho hum.

insomnia, did you not stop to consider that, as with many recent BBC productions, Planet Earth may be a joint effort with US networks? And that it may be those US networks who are preventing you from watching it for free, not the beeb? However, your "Blair is stopping me from watching telly" line was fucking hilarious. Wonderful self-parody.
posted by blag at 5:09 PM on March 5, 2006

It occurs to me that BBC America is probably also funded in part by my cable provider, and gets a bit of money out of my monthly cable bill, too.

BBC America is a joint venture with Discovery. It, like all of the Beeb's commercial arms, works on a different basis to the corporation proper.

to an outsider looking in, BBC access rules generally seem inconsistently applied and arbitrary.

That's because, given the breadth of the BBC's output, there are lots of different people to make those rules with, and they all have different demands, whether it's radio commentaries of Premiership matches or cricket Tests (which have location-specific streaming deals negotiated separately) or independently commissioned programming or foreign buys or in-house productions.

Yes, it would be nice to have a way to volunteer a licence fee. But given how long it's taken to get content providers to sign on to the Creative Archive when the main performers are animals gives you a sense of how tricky the process is.

Here's a parallel example. In the late-90s, MLB games could still be found streamed, for free, on local stations. Then the MLB centralised it and made it subscription-only. If you want a video stream of the World Series, you have to be located outside the US. Sometimes other sporting events in the US are subject to local blackout. Multiply that several hundred times, and you get the Creative Archive negotiations.
posted by holgate at 9:30 PM on March 5, 2006

I've been peripherally involved in the bbc creative commons initiative (i did a sort of talk at the launch and I've followed the progress of the whole thing with a lot of interest), and I admit to some disappointment after the initial euphoria of the "hey kids ! lets give everything away for free !" phase. But after talking with a lot of the people involved (who are genuinely trying to do something good), I can understand why it's been so slow and difficult.
The licensing of a TV program is very, very complex, and clearing up content for free distribution is actually really complicated and expensive. Consider this example I was given (which is apparently not uncommon) - a producer I know made a program which contained an interview with the mother of a man who'd died of AIDS in Japan - she only agreed to do the interview on the condition that the program was never shown in Japan. Every program has a huge bunch of licenses and releases covering everything from the music, to contracts with actors and interviewees etc. To release it for free to the net requires lawyers to go over every single one of these contracts and clear it. This is why most of the stuff they've released so far is wildlife programs etc - you don't have to pay for such a large army of lawyers to clear it, since the rights are often (but not always) completely owned by the BBC. It's just not possible for the BBC to release most of the programs they make for free, since they would have to pay WAY more for the worldwide license of the music, library footage, actors fees etc. etc. It would end up costing at least double the current amount to make their programs. It's just the reality of the complexity of the tv making business. In the future the BBC is aiming to make contracts which make it easier to release stuff, but those whose income depends on things like repeat payments etc. are understandably unwilling to just give away a universal license without being paid more in the first place.
There's also a political issue with global distribution - the BBC makes money by selling their stock footage, news channels and programs abroad. Distributing these for free not only costs the bbc directly in bandwidth charges, but (arguably) undercuts their other businesses. I'm personally not convinced that it would undercut their business (though I certainly wouldn't pay for the BBC news TV service, since I have free access to their website), but the license fee is a political football, and the BBC is terrified of appearing not to be using it as efficiently as possible. If you're from the US, try thinking of the license fee payers as shareholders, and the board of directors deciding to give away their main assets for free with no possibility for a return from that money. It's hard for them to defend if they were attacked by the right wing who have always tried everything they can to abolish the license fee and tear the BBC apart into a more "efficient" commercial TV station.
In summary - the people at the BBC who are behind these initiatives are very good people tiptoeing through a very complex legal minefield. They would love to open up every program they make to everyone in the world, but they have to be very very careful how they get there. Give them a break.
posted by silence at 4:20 AM on March 6, 2006

jesus. that was a long post. sorry.
posted by silence at 4:21 AM on March 6, 2006