To think the BBC really should be shut down?

[Loeri]

After the child abuse scandals, and now this where BBC execs have been given payments far beyond anything they were required to be given, isn't it time that the BBC was just shut down? It can't really be said that it makes the best TV in the world anymore, the best TV programmes come from the US and have done for well over a decade now. I just don't see the purpose of the BBC in 2013. It is arrogant, bloated beyond belief and seems only to exist to provide cushy jobs for the Guardian set.

So the BBC doesn't have unrestricted autonomy to reuse its "own" programmes however it chooses, as it doesn't truly own every part of them.

Hmm, sounds like quite a fiddly and complicated problem to crack. If only there were a dedicated arm of the BBC devoted to resolving such issues and getting sales of BBC programming overseas which can subsidise the BBC budget. Like BBC Worldwide, which has been running for years and years and years.

WherewasHonahLee same here, Radio 4 was always on in my kitchen but no more. Why not make the BBC pay to view, listen?

It could own every part of it's own programmes. It would have to be sorted out with the third party companies that produce programmes for the BBC.

There's also some issues with royalties and music rights for older programmes that were made before syndication and VHS/DVD was an issue. Obviously that isn't an issue with programmes made today because they are made with those mediums in mind to start with.

If you want to see how crap telly would be if we had no BBC, just look at PBS in the US. Boring worthy programmes repeated ad infinitum with the middle classes doing telethons to keep it all afloat. Give me Dr Who/Dibley/EastEnders/BBC News over other stuff any day.

BTW remember when 9/11 happened and BBC News was the place people turned for impartial coverage internationally?

YABU for thinking the best TV programmes come from the US now and for thinking that only Guardian readers watch the BBC.

What papers do Sky viewers read?

'It could own every part of it's own programmes. It would have to be sorted out with the third party companies that produce programmes for the BBC.'

How do you propose 'sorting this out', OP? Independent production companies aren't just producers for hire - they want ownership and distribution rights to the programmes they make.

I'm a bit suspicious of posters who criticise the BBC and then defend Murdoch. Murdoch orginisations broke the law for years and then lied and obstructed justice for years to stop it coming to light. As somebody else said he shut down the NoW only to reopen it as the Sun on Sunday. Something it was rumoured he wanted to do anyway.
Incidently if you think the BBC should be shut down because of Jimmy Savile then maybe the Tory party should also be shut down.? news.sky.com/story/1116790/thatcher-pushed-for-jimmy-savile-knighthood

You are still following on with this notion of BBC "owning all the rights to the programmes". That, so far as I understand, just doesn't happen. The BBC will always need to agree rights with the owners of the music, the talents' agents, the production companies etc. All those organisations would want to renegotiate their rights agreements and get a cut of the income if the BBC launched, for example, a PPV overseas iPlayer service.

Boffinmum - I watched 9/11 on CNN.

I find the quality of BBC drama is so disappointing. There are some gems but so much of it is hackneyed. Look at Danish dramas and the sheer number of women featuring in them, not just as victims or sidekicks (a la BBC) but as the protagonist - and being a woman isn't the most interesting part of the character, and she is played against a make sidekick who is juggling family responsibilities (watch The Killing)

I remember watching the first series of Luther and I was horrified by the content and by the way violence against women was treated as casual entertainment. Ditto - well all the opther crime dramas produced by the BBC.

I love Radio 4 and Six music though, they are reason I pay my licence fee.

Is anyone else reading this intrigued as to who is right re the international broadcasting rights?! I'm tempted to try to google it, but if it were that simple, surely the person who is right would have linked already.....

This isn't specific to the BBC, by the way. The same is true for all content providers.

As I said, the resale of BBC programming does currently happen, via BBC Worldwide, and it requires the BBC to pay production companies, agents, music owners, etc a cut of the income. Same would be true for the proposed new service you suggest.

You seem to think you've thought of something sparkly and new, but I'm afraid you really haven't (and I know this despite really not knowing much about media). You could maybe get some of what you wanted if you were willing to tell the BBC to take production back in-house, but that's hardly in the spirit of the rest of what you suggest. And it still wouldn't solve music and other rights issues.

I am right regarding the international broadcast rights. As was the poster who agreed with me. The international broadcast rights are owned by the owner of the rights to the programme. Not governments.

Of course the BBC would have to renegotiate with the third party producers, music rights owners etc etc. But they would have to do that for every new media form that comes along, Radio, TV, VHS, DVD, Internet, etc etc. I know a lot of shows from the 60s and 70s were only supposed to be shown 3 times because of deals with Equity but since then new agreements have been made.

I think some programmes that are shown on the BBC but made for them by someone else have DVDs etc released independently of the BBC and some are released directly through the BBC.

It really doesn't matter if the BBC makes a programme themselves or pays for someone else to make it for them, as long as the rights are sorted out, the BBC owns the programme. At present, they don't own all their programmes. But they could. It's just a matter of negotiation with the third party companies. Not a matter of paying governments.

Beyond, you could start here:
www.out-law.com/page-6400

Beyond that, we need a meejah exec to come along and explain how it is.

Friday thanks for your information. I work in the private sector and no way would shareholders agree to Lucy Adams resignation and hence being paid her notice pay. She would be dismissed for gross incompetence with no pay in lieu of notice.

I cannot understand why the BBC stakeholders put up with this. Is Offcom a stakeholder>

Surely we are all stakeholders in the BBC?

The international broadcast rights are owned by the owner of the rights to the programme.

Well, yes . But this is often the production company, not the BBC.

Not governments - who said the government owned the rights to a programme?

It really doesn't matter if the BBC makes a programme themselves or pays for someone else to make it for them, as long as the rights are sorted out, the BBC owns the programme. At present, they don't own all their programmes. But they could. It's just a matter of negotiation with the third party companies. Not a matter of paying governments.

The level of ignorance here is quite staggering. Of course it matters if they make it themselves or not. The BBC does not necessarily own the rights to that programme. It's got nothing to do with governments (again). Except that the government was (I think, correct me if I'm wrong) instrumental in the decision that a percentage of the BBC's programmes should be made by independent producers, not in-house. To reduce the monopoly on programme-making and ownership. So it's not 'just a matter of negotiation.'

I am right regarding the international broadcast rights. As was the poster who agreed with me. Just [snort] at this. Of course you are, love.

"as long as the rights are sorted out, the BBC owns the programme"

I think you need to look into this a bit more as it's not true. The BBC often has the rights to broadcast something for a set period of time but they don't retain the rights as a matter of course and rights issues are a lot more difficult when the programme contains still pictures and film that is not BBC copyright. Independent companies who make programmes for the BBC (And other broadcasters) will often retain the rights, though the BBC might do all the work of storing, cataloguing and researching them.

Also, when someone makes a programme, if they want it to be shown worldwide then there is a lot of work that goes into clearing the rights to all the elements so that the programme can be shown across borders. Sometimes all the music on a programme needs to be changed, sometimes the rights to images changes hands. Sometimes a programme is only allowed to show a certain image a few times and if they show it more than they have agreed to then they are breaching the terms they have signed. A lot of money is spent dealing with mistakes like this.

You know this Loeri is a troll from the Mail/Sun features desk don't you?

It always amazes me these very critical and indignant people on forums who can't spell and make basic errors in their arguments, ie can't identify the right BBC exective to be annoyed about.

I don't care if you don't like the BBC, no-one's interested in your sad little opinion and the majority of people on this thread don't agree with you.

Utterly pathetic. Don't feed the trolls.

And I have reported your offensive post to reggiebean, OP.

Lasvegas, quite a lot of us work in the private sector. It is in no way a given that a senior director who stuffed up badly would be fired. While it might send some helpful messages internally about accountability, there are plenty of reasons not to do so as well (tribunals, reputation management, etc etc).

But I'll tell you what. I'll bet no-one bothers giving Deborah Baker at BSkyB a hard time over big payoffs to get rid of execs. I'll bet the focus is on the people strategy of the organisation instead. Millions vs billions and all that.

I love love love the BBC. Yes they have fucked up, but I still love them.

I'm not originally from UK - the BBC is unique and wonderful and Brits should be very proud.

Rights issues are INCREDIBLY complicated, but essentially Loeri is right. Broadcasters like the BBC don't engage in negotiations with overseas governments about rights to show their programmes there; they engage with overseas media outlets to sell these outlets the rights to broadcast the BBC's output overseas.

Say the BBC produce something, say Human Planet, which was made in conjunction with Discovery and BBC Worldwide. The BBC own the rights to show it in the UK, and Discovery in the US. The rights to show it elsewhere are then negotiated with other broadcasters; so for example, ABC bought it in Australia, NRK in Norway.

The BBC runs a "BBC Showcase" programme market every year, where overseas broadcasters come to bid for the rights to show BBC programmes.

Owners of media rights are largely free to sell broadcast licenses to whoever they want. The Premier League sold overseas broadcasting rights for the Middle East, for example, to Al Jazeera. Nothing to do with the governments in the Middle East.

Most standard BBC contracts these days include terms that allow the BBC the right to rebroadcast/online broadcast/overseas rights but there are many that don't, especially if they were made by external production companies. Which is why a proposal for an online site with pay per view BBC programmes viewable worldwide would be impossible to implement, as whilst the BBC own the rights to many programmes, there are many popular ones they don't own the complete overseas rights to, either because they never had them anyway or have sold them. Or they might own the overseas rights but not the online rights. They make far more from selling them to overseas broadcasters than they would even in the medium term by keeping the rights and doing online pay per view, so it won't happen.

In some cases, you'll find the BBC iPlayer doesn't have something that was shown yesterday or whenever because the BBC don't own the online rights to it. This is the case with, for example, saturday night's Match of the Day highlights wasn't last year, as the FA Premier league own the rights to the online broadcast of matches and didn't grant the right to the BBC (though this will change for 2013/14 season).

And this only scratches the surface of the complexity......

(ex BBC Online employee of many years, media analyst)

It always amazes me these very critical and indignant people on forums who can't spell and make basic errors in their arguments, ie can't identify the right BBC exective to be annoyed about.

oooh get myfriendflicka How dare folk with poor spelling have an opinion? Do you work for the beeb Flicka? With an attitude like that, you really should give it a whirl!

I wasn't aware the The Mail and The Sun features desks were now a single entity