Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,759
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on May 25, 2020 6:20:19 GMT
Can I ask whether Davıd Boothroyd has any more local elections up his sleeve (as I think it might be a nice time to remind us of the local election disasters for the Conservatives that was 1993, 1994, 1995 and 1996, as I think we might be heading for the same again!)
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 25, 2020 9:04:17 GMT
I have already uploaded BBC coverage of 1996, 1998, 1999, 2003, and 2006.
I don't think I have any more from 2002 and 2004 than has already been posted. I might have more from 2000 from which the Romsey byelection was cut (and I have Sky coverage from 2000 which I suspect would be the subject of a copyright claim).
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 30, 2020 18:48:39 GMT
I found something marked as the 2000 local election coverage but which turned out to be the BBC coverage of 2002. Will be uplaoded soon.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on May 31, 2020 13:03:27 GMT
Here if you missed it (as I did at the time, as I was at the count being elected for the first time).
|
|
|
Post by mick745 on Jun 1, 2020 19:10:18 GMT
I have always wondered why the bbc hold on to so much stuff and never repeat it or make it available to anyone. Very little programming has much commercial value after broadcast and yet the bbc just do nothing with it.
I am talking mainly about current affairs programming.
Thousands upon thousands of hours will never be seen by anyone again, ever.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jun 1, 2020 19:32:23 GMT
I have always wondered why the bbc hold on to so much stuff and never repeat it or make it available to anyone. Very little programming has much commercial value after broadcast and yet the bbc just do nothing with it. I am talking mainly about current affairs programming. Thousands upon thousands of hours will never be seen by anyone again, ever. I've heard that their archive is in a bit of a mess compared to what you might expect. Also, apparently a lot of interesting programmes have been deleted while others of no interest whatsoever from the same time period have been retained.
|
|
|
Post by andrewteale on Jun 1, 2020 20:40:01 GMT
I have always wondered why the bbc hold on to so much stuff and never repeat it or make it available to anyone. Very little programming has much commercial value after broadcast and yet the bbc just do nothing with it. I am talking mainly about current affairs programming. Thousands upon thousands of hours will never be seen by anyone again, ever. I've heard that their archive is in a bit of a mess compared to what you might expect. Also, apparently a lot of interesting programmes have been deleted while others of no interest whatsoever from the same time period have been retained. There are also lots of problems with rights issues. One former Top of the Pops presenter (not one of the ones who got Yewtreed) won't give permission for the BBC to repeat his programmes and there's nothing Auntie can do about it.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jun 1, 2020 22:00:54 GMT
I've heard that their archive is in a bit of a mess compared to what you might expect. Also, apparently a lot of interesting programmes have been deleted while others of no interest whatsoever from the same time period have been retained. There are also lots of problems with rights issues. One former Top of the Pops presenter (not one of the ones who got Yewtreed) won't give permission for the BBC to repeat his programmes and there's nothing Auntie can do about it. I don’t think there are; performing rights only apply if you’ve signed a contract, and contracts for news and current affairs are different than for entertainment - such rights only apply to the creators of content, and news/current affairs presenters aren’t deemed to create content. There’s also a debate as to whether BBC Parliament is considered a different entity than BBC One; the most infamous example is Lewis Collins refused to allow The Professionals to be re-run, even when Gordon Jackson’s widow was in dire financial difficulties and needed the repeat fees, however he lost a court case over the show being re-run on cable/satellite as it was ruled that the no repeat clause in his original contract only applied to what’s now the ITV Network.
|
|
|
Post by mick745 on Jun 2, 2020 10:04:42 GMT
I understand the whole 'paid actors' part. Does the content belong to those actors? But who paid for the bbc to make programmes in the first place. Licence fee payers so in a way dont they belong to us anyway? The bbc's news and current affairs output is vast.
It is like anything that's second hand. Television has a very transient and fleeting nature and old stuff loses wider interest very quickly.
I collect stamps and know that the vast majority is relative worthless, only a very tiny percentage has any worth or value, same with second hand books, etc.
What is the point of keeping all this stuff just in a vault somewhere so nobody can ever see, watch or refer to it again?
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jun 2, 2020 10:32:14 GMT
I understand the whole 'paid actors' part. Does the content belong to those actors? But who paid for the bbc to make programmes in the first place. Licence fee payers so in a way dont they belong to us anyway? The bbc's news and current affairs output is vast. It is like anything that's second hand. Television has a very transient and fleeting nature and old stuff loses wider interest very quickly. I collect stamps and know that the vast majority is relative worthless, only a very tiny percentage has any worth or value, same with second hand books, etc. What is the point of keeping all this stuff just in a vault somewhere so nobody can ever see, watch or refer to it again? In the field of entertainment, including documentaries like, for example, Andrew Marr’s History of Britain where he has asserted his rights as the author of the content, most contracts include an agreement on repeats, usually just how much you get paid per repeat. Problems occasionally arise when such a person no longer wishes to be associated with a programme (in the case of The Professionals it’s a long running dispute that Collins argues he was underpaid originally so withheld his permission for reruns), or a show has become so popular a cast member argues the repeat fees should be higher (case in point, the repeat fees rose with every series of Only Fools as it became the supernova of BBC comedy, on the flip side Glenda Jackson wrote she occasionally gets a cheque for £50 when her Morecambe and Wide appearance is repeated. None of this should apply to news and affairs unless it’s a joint venture perhaps with a newspaper where there’s joint copyright. 99 times out of 100 though there’s no issue and things can and are rerun without a hitch.
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 36,546
|
Post by The Bishop on Jun 2, 2020 10:43:29 GMT
I've heard that their archive is in a bit of a mess compared to what you might expect. Also, apparently a lot of interesting programmes have been deleted while others of no interest whatsoever from the same time period have been retained. There are also lots of problems with rights issues. One former Top of the Pops presenter (not one of the ones who got Yewtreed) won't give permission for the BBC to repeat his programmes and there's nothing Auntie can do about it. Isn't the person in question deceased?
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 2, 2020 12:21:33 GMT
There are also lots of problems with rights issues. One former Top of the Pops presenter (not one of the ones who got Yewtreed) won't give permission for the BBC to repeat his programmes and there's nothing Auntie can do about it. Isn't the person in question deceased? I believe he is and his widow is respecting his wishes.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jun 2, 2020 13:19:08 GMT
Isn't the person in question deceased? I believe he is and his widow is respecting his wishes. I’m intrigued to know on what grounds they don’t want the shows repeated as the legal basis is extremely narrow and there must be very good reasons why the BBC aren’t simply saying “sorry but it’s on BBC4 next week”.
|
|
|
Post by gwynthegriff on Jun 2, 2020 13:30:51 GMT
I believe he is and his widow is respecting his wishes. I’m intrigued to know on what grounds they don’t want the shows repeated as the legal basis is extremely narrow and there must be very good reasons why the BBC aren’t simply saying “sorry but it’s on BBC4 next week”. No idea. But when I worked for the BBC (just drop that one in there - as a freelance, not employee) I seem to recall the contract included passing copyright back to the originator after a period of time. So repeats within x years - their copyright; beyond x years - my copyright. So if they ever repeat "Pupur a Halen" it's payday for Gwyn! Though 1980s current affairs satire is probably a bit niche. EDIT: Sorry, just noticed you explained this upthread in a post I hadn't spotted.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 2, 2020 13:46:07 GMT
I have always wondered why the bbc hold on to so much stuff and never repeat it or make it available to anyone. Very little programming has much commercial value after broadcast and yet the bbc just do nothing with it. I am talking mainly about current affairs programming. Thousands upon thousands of hours will never be seen by anyone again, ever. In terms of current affairs programming, it is not as simple as just uploading it. Someone would still have to go through it all and make sure it is suitable for broadcast. There may be legal issues, eg if there was a report of a court case where the defendant was subsequently found not guilty, it probably wouldn't be appropriate to show it again. Even if it did all magically appear on the iPlayer, would anyone actually watch 99% of it?
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jun 2, 2020 14:30:06 GMT
I have always wondered why the bbc hold on to so much stuff and never repeat it or make it available to anyone. Very little programming has much commercial value after broadcast and yet the bbc just do nothing with it. I am talking mainly about current affairs programming. Thousands upon thousands of hours will never be seen by anyone again, ever. In terms of current affairs programming, it is not as simple as just uploading it. Someone would still have to go through it all and make sure it is suitable for broadcast. There may be legal issues, eg if there was a report of a court case where the defendant was subsequently found not guilty, it probably wouldn't be appropriate to show it again. Even if it did all magically appear on the iPlayer, would anyone actually watch 99% of it? Such examples wouldn’t apply as you were reporting facts as they were at the time - a very recent example was the 1979 General Election rerun in which considerable time was devoted to Jeremy Thorpe’s upcoming trial. The law doesn’t require reporting to be changed retrospectively. The older the programme gets the less likely this is to be a problem anyway as there’s an ongoing project of transferring recordings from tape to disc which necessitates watching the programme to ensure it’s not decayed to the point of being unwatchable (hence the big jumps in the 1959 election coverage.
|
|
|
Post by greatkingrat on Jun 2, 2020 15:24:00 GMT
I think there is a difference though between programmes about high profile public figures, and "ordinary" members of the public. It may not actually be illegal to broadcast the programs again, but i am sure there would be complaints from some of the people featured, who for one reason or another, want something to be forgotten.
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Jun 2, 2020 15:30:24 GMT
I think there is a difference though between programmes about high profile public figures, and "ordinary" members of the public. It may not actually be illegal to broadcast the programs again, but i am sure there would be complaints from some of the people featured, who for one reason or another, want something to be forgotten. As they may, but they don’t have any say on copyright.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jun 9, 2020 12:19:06 GMT
Now regretting putting this in one file but here's the BBC's overnight coverage of 'Vote 2000':
|
|
|
Post by Andrew_S on Jul 14, 2020 4:06:26 GMT
This was uploaded to YouTube a few months ago. Australian election, 5th March 1983.
|
|