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.

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

problem is, as the posters above say, the rights simply cannot "be sorted out". The BBC will NEVER be able to negotiate complete rights to everything it has a hand in, because there are often so many people and different types of rights involved.

Even if the BBC produced EVERYTHING in-house, it still wouldn't raise as much money as selling the rights anyway!

I reported the OP's post to Reggiebean too.

OP, you sound totally unhinged. And I can't think why you posted this in AIBU, as you are refusing to accept that you might be and are refusing to engage in any kind of meaningful debate.

I apologised for swearing. Reggiebean was being offensive too.

I have been debating all through the thread.

"problem is, as the posters above say, the rights simply cannot "be sorted out". The BBC will NEVER be able to negotiate complete rights to everything it has a hand in, because there are often so many people and different types of rights involved. "
Why not? Of course it can! Even programmes made directly by the BBC will have many different people and rights to music involved. But they own the rights to those programmes and can sell them worldwide. What's the difference?

"Rights issues are INCREDIBLY complicated, but essentially Loeri is right."

Thank you. At least some people on this thread are informed. Not that being uninformed is wrong, but thinking you are informed when in fact you are quite wrong is another thing entirely.

Yes, some programmes will be fine. Others will be fine for some overseas sales and not others, so won't be able to be put onto any website that is worldwide broadcast. Even for those that are, the money made by selling them PPV won't come anywhere near the money made selling them territory by territory to overseas broadcasters.

Loeri, what the poster said was:

'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.'

You are right that the BBC doesn't negotiate with overseas governments. (Which I wasn't disputing.) On so many other counts, you are wrong.

Not that being uninformed is wrong, but thinking you are informed when in fact you are quite wrong is another thing entirely.

Physician, heal thyself

Fuck me op have you nothing better to fo than offend people.

You are a small minded and refuse to see YABU massively. Lots love the beeb its not going away get used to it!!!!!!

And [snort] again at the assertion that, because someone agrees with you, that makes them 'informed'.

I wish reggiebean would come back. Hope she's lurking and having a laugh

This made me laugh out loud:

People who are "just so sure" they are right when they are utterly wrong really annoy me. I might be wrong about some things but if I'm utterly sure of something, you can bet damn sure that I am in the right

"Others will be fine for some overseas sales and not others, so won't be able to be put onto any website that is worldwide broadcast. Even for those that are, the money made by selling them PPV won't come anywhere near the money made selling them territory by territory to overseas broadcasters."
If the BBC makes the programmes or contracts out other producers to make the programme for them, then they can broadcast them worldwide. Why wouldn't they be able to? Unless they themselves agree some kind of rights that say otherwise, but given the fact that they'd be setting up this website, why would they do that?

They'd make less at first, no doubt, but eventually they'd make more by cutting out the middle men of overseas broadcasters. The overseas broadcasters make more out of the programmes they buy from the BBC than they pay the BBC for showing them, or there'd be no point buying them in the first place.

I started reading this thread but got so bored with be OP's US tv hero worship that I gave up. You stick with your crappy American tripe.

Grr. I knew this would happen. Sodding confirmation bias.

"Loeri Fri 06-Sep-13 14:34:02
"Rights issues are INCREDIBLY complicated, but essentially Loeri is right."

Thank you. At least some people on this thread are informed. Not that being uninformed is wrong, but thinking you are informed when in fact you are quite wrong is another thing entirely."

No Loeri. You were right about the point about governments. But you are wrong about the notion of the BBC being able to rebroadcast freely and it not being a big deal. Patricia's posts have been quite clear on this. (As have mine, but I lack her detailed knowledge)

You are also completely and utterly wrong about this: "They [the BBC] own the rights to those programmes [the ones they have made directly] and can sell them worldwide." I don't see why you are finding it so difficult to understand that the BBC needs to get rights holders' agreements before it sells a programme overseas. It can't just do so without such agreements, irrespective of whether it made or bought the programme. It may be that the original agreement with the rights holders will have covered both use in the UK and overseas, but this is hardly a given, as (surprise!) rights holders will want more money if the BBC wants to use their property more widely or to make money via its commercial arm.

Why are you being so obtuse about this?

[ducks out of hiding and waves at CJCregg]

Yep, still here, it's just that my mum always taught me that you can't argue with stupid.
I actually think it would be amazing to see things through the OP's eyes... With BBC fat cats holding secret meetings with foreign governments over showing some wholly-owned and produced BBC show (god, can you image what that would be like?!) on Youtube... Amazing.

Really, Loeri? Really?

You think that the BBC hasn't ever seriously reviewed the opportunities and costs of an OTT service?

And you can say, with assurance, that you know how the numbers will play out? Mind putting up the model then? I'd like to see your NPV calculations, plus of course reviewing your estimates of changes in market share for pay-TV vs OTT, as well as the detailed assumptions that lie behind your confident assertions.

For people who are actually interested in some facts, here's what the BBC is saying about the market context (specifically for OTT services, there's plenty more on other topics).

"Cord-cutting, cord-shaving and cord-nevers
The television industry continues its preoccupation with the potential impact on the traditional pay TV eco-system of over-the-top (OTT) providers like Netflix and Amazon-owned LOVEFiLM. Reflecting the level of discussion and debate, a new vocabulary is being built-up to describe consumer behaviour in response to OTT: cord-cutting, cord-shaving and cord-nevers. Broadband distribution of content is changing the way television content is accessed and viewed and will change audience expectations over time. But evidence of the likely impact on pay TV is inconclusive and up for debate.

Total pay TV households in the USA remained virtually flat during 2012. Between Q4 2011 and Q4 2012 cable and satellite operators lost 1.4m paying households, with virtually the same number picked up by Internet Protocol Television (IPTV) platforms (IHS Screen Digest). These subscription numbers include the cyclical effects of a weak economy as well as the structural effect of OTT competition. At the moment, cord-cutting - when customers move from expensive cable service to a low cost channel subscription through OTT - may be as much the result of squeezed household incomes as it is a switch in favour of broadband-distributed, video-on-demand services. There is perhaps greater concern over cord-shaving, where consumers stop taking premium packages as part of their pay TV subscriptions in favour of cheaper OTT options.

For now, we believe pay TV and OTT can co-exist for at least the next ten years. Nielsen's Cross-Platform Report in Q4 2012 puts live television viewing at 156 hours per month for an average American, up on the year before and little changed from five years previously. By comparison, time spent per month watching video on the internet or on mobile phone was around 13 hours, with a similar 13 hours spent watching time-shifted television. Relative viewing behaviour is similar in the UK.

However, there will be pressures. In the short term, negotiations between pay TV platform operators and networks appear to be becoming even more difficult.

In the medium term, new players are joining the fray, potentially bringing new and more disruptive business models. For example, Intel confirmed its intention to launch an OTT television service and has been signing content deals.

In the long term, the risk for the pay TV system lies in a generational shift in the potential for cord-nevers among those currently under 25 years old. According to Nielsen, 35-49 year olds in America watch 157 hours of live TV a month and 12 hours of video on the internet or a mobile phone. The figures for 18-24 year olds are 111 and 22. If there is a generation growing up keen and comfortable to search for what they want to watch, and expecting it to be available immediately, they may not follow their parents in preferring the lean-back experience of live television and may never choose to subscribe to pay television."

Dr Who, PramFace, Have I Got News for You, Russell Howard's Good News, Mock the Week, Pride and Prejudice, the Apprentice.

I love the BBC.

"Unless they themselves agree some kind of rights that say otherwise, but given the fact that they'd be setting up this website, why would they do that?"

Because they don't have a choice. Many production companies simply aren't going to sign over worldwide and online rights to the BBC for a price the BBC can afford. Some will, so the BBC could put those programmes up, others won't. The BBC won't stop doing co-productions as it can't afford to finance all of its programming itself.

It's worth noting here that the BBC does already have some worldwide VOD, and plans to keep expanding the offerings; BBC America On Demand for example, and partnerships with Netflix and Hulu. For some programmes in some territories, online PPV works. For others in others, it doesn't. It's not a catch-all solution.

'The overseas broadcasters make more out of the programmes they buy from the BBC than they pay the BBC for showing them, or there'd be no point buying them in the first place."

Yes, by selling advertising around them, and using them as an incentive for viewers to sign up to their TV packages. Not the same as asking viewers to pay for programmes individually on a PPV basis.

HA!! I can't believe this ^^

Had no idea she'd been banned from the whole board... Brilliant!

Just read thread and realised I interrupted a bun fight. Sorry! [ducks away]

The BBC 'rapes your children.'

I really have nothing else to add.

There has been some fascinating stuff on this thread. I used to work in tv distribution and it's clearly a hell of a lot more complicated these days than it used to be ...

Puce is rarely a flattering colour.

I did think it was getting a bit silly, but dearie, dearie me.

I was going to mention the costs in commissioning and the difficulty in getting some of the breakthrough stuff, like Planet Dinosaur, which BBC is really well placed to be at the cutting edge.

I was going to mention that output and local news was far beyond most corporations.

I didn't think it would have had any effect anyway.

Dearie, dearie me.