41–50 of 135 posts
At least there is more than one kind of insect cricket sound effect, rather than LA field crickets all over the world. (-:
I think these were recorded before the decline of insect populations worldwide.
The aforementioned might be why they've gone with the licence that they did.
If you wonder why the answer is successive Tory government don't like the BBC at an ideological and personal level (hence why the BBC ends up having to pay the once free licence fees of old people)
Martian computer - 1972 (7K, reprocessed) http://bbcsfx.acropolis.org.uk/assets/07074134.wav
> 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…
The BBC is perpetually limited to "not compete" with "real" companies. That is why you still cannot watch anything you want on the iPlayer despite the service having been working for long enough that they had could've really staked at out a claim for themselves. Even if you pay the licence fee they are still overly limited in what they can let you watch - in doing so the regulators have probably killed off the BBC's…
The unelected Labour opposition proposed activist shills took control of the editorial policy of not just the BBC but also print media.
For anyone not familiar with the debate, the BBC is inexorably accused of both being too left wing and too right wing by various loudmouths.
> Even if you pay the licence fee they are still overly limited in what they can let you watch - in doing so the regulators have probably killed off the BBC's long term prospects amongst the younger generation (no one my age watches TV by default anymore)
That's because the content is absolutely appalling. I speak as a BBC fan and proponent historically. Both TV and Radio output quality has been absolutely eviscerated in the last 10 or so years, for various reasons and by certain kinds of persons.
I challenge anyone to go to this link for tomorrow: https://www.bbc.co.uk/schedules/p00fzl6p/2020/09/26 and tell me how the premier/flagship BBC channel content on a Friday there remotely represents balanced quality output?
In prime time there are 3 reality/talent shows and Casualty, a terrible budget soap opera that's been endured for the last 35 years (with multiple spin offs) as well as a close to zero budget quiz show. That's the "good" content, the rest is even more miserable. How does that even remotely represent value for the $4billion a year they take by statutory arrangement?
> 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…
Does anyone with experience with this sort if thing know what kind of deal this is? It seems quite cheap.
You can compare the commercial licence with that of others for yourself. See 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does anyone with experience with this sort if thing know what kind of deal this is? It seems quite cheap.
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.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you're a "media" producer, you can use them to build your game, soundtrack, presentation, etc. Once you're satisfied, and the product will be published, you can decide to get a license. You've seen the price: buying such licenses beforehand is only for dedicated professionals.
But can you use them as a sound effect in a youtube video, where you may earn some revenue through adverts some time in the future (or maybe not)?
> [...] You can't [...] put ads next to or over it (the content)
1: https://github.com/bbcarchdev/Remarc/blob/master/doc/2016.09...
The BBC is perpetually limited to "not compete" with "real" companies. That is why you still cannot watch anything you want on the iPlayer despite the service having been working for long enough that they had could've really staked at out a claim for themselves. Even if you pay the licence fee they are still overly limited in what they can let you watch - in doing so the regulators have probably killed off the BBC's…
> If you wonder why the answer is successive Tory government don't like the BBC at an ideological and personal level (hence why the BBC ends up having to pay the once free licence fees of old people) The unelected Labour opposition proposed activist shills took control of the editorial policy of not just the BBC but also print media. For anyone not familiar with the debate, the BBC is inexorably accused of both being…