Ditto.

I conveniently forgot that

No I'm not joking. I believe we in the UK usually fail in extracting maximum value from our IP, it's kind of endemic, pointing maybe to the way that we run our educational and research institutes. At least part of it must be the educational system, that's why I think government needs to be involved. This is something that applies across all industries in the UK.

I visited our most famous fruit/tree research organisation last year, they were in pretty bad financial shape (have subsequently got rid of loads of people and now merged with another institute) the leader of the broadleaf timber development programme told us about their successful introduction of Europe's first cherry bred for timber, I asked what royalties were being generated, they said they didn't charge any on it. As far as I know there is no longer any public sector research into new orchard varieties in the UK, by contrast WSU in particular and a few other US institutes are investing heavily, but then they're good at exploiting their IP commercially.

Thanks for the vote of confidence

Didn't notice that bit, do you read the Daily Mail hybrid8?

Hey, come on, it's Bruno, who actually listens to the vast majority of what he says?

Or to something cultural. I think there's something ingrained in Britain that's very similar to the Swedish idea of lagom; this pitched-as-comedy but actually very insightful psychological analysis calls it cosiness, but I think it's talking about the same thing. A lot of British people get genuinely embarrassed at the idea of being very notably good at something.


That particular issue -- applying IP laws to living organisms -- is contentious in its own right, though; perhaps even in the US. Even if information doesn't necessarily want to be free, trees do. The only places where this very splendid work strikes a wrong note to me, are the ones where the author describes the patenting in industrialised countries, of drugs derived from traditional rainforest medicines, as "exploitation" but implies that it's not the patenting itself that's wrong, but that the patents aren't owned by the forest tribespeople.

Peter

Contentious it may be but it is unfortunately the future, near enough all new fruit varieties are protected, e.g Pink Lady apples.

I'd love to somehow be involved in an "open source" breeding initiative, and I had hoped to be involved in (amongst other things) releasing the data of the National Fruit Collection (something that we've all paid for) but we didn't win the contract.

Now this is another thing, and one that I've considered, but we have so many immigrants, we can't all be constrained by our "British" cultural values. Can we? (Speaking as the product of immigrant parents)

I just call it as I see it, but I hope things do turn around. It has to start with the people and eradicating apathy. And it's a hot issue with me because I see the same attitudes here in Canada and fear we may be headed for the same outcome (I don't want to say "fate" here).

There are examples on a number of different scales of successful British entities, such as Virgin, Dyson, Arcam, Linn and Naim to name a few. Yes, most average people wouldn't recognize the last three.

Perhaps the current state of affairs has more to do with what the government is already doing rather than what they're not doing. Seriously, the Canadian government's (federal and provincial) fingers are sticky enough, but things are, IMO, far overboard in the UK.

While I agree with tahir in so far as government needing to be involved in programs to stimulate industry, I don't believe that the issue has been one of marketing. Nor would the government be able to effectively alter any deficiencies in that department. There's a lot of positive moves/changes that can be made if governments (any) better prioritized and focused their spending and efforts. In the UK however, the most visible just happen to be the expenses associated with keeping the populace under 24 hour surveillance and taxed into submission. Take for instance the TV "license" that came up in another discussion. Asinine.

So are you arguing that the BBC should be paid for by general-purpose tax monies, or that it should be disassembled or privatized?

How is the CBC funded?

Canada pumps a lot of money into TV and film besides the CBC. I've never looked at the CBC's books, but apart from any government fund infusions, they also sell advertising like any other network.

I don't have a problem with some tax money going towards the arts and helping the film and television industries in Canada. Our taxes are up there, but I do prefer having thing like this properly budgeted and pitted against other necessities in trying to balance those budgets. The absurdity of a "license" for owning a television however, in this country, would just be an obvious cash grab. Not that there aren't those here already, such as the $50 Permanent resident card that came into law a few years ago for resident status immigrants (full of loop-holes too). Then add to that employing people and a fleet of vehicles (in the UK) to track down citizens that aren't licensed... That was discussed previously as well if I'm not mistaken. Seems to me like a very backwards way to get some funds to the BBC.

Like I said, I have genuine fears for the way things have been slowly moving in Canada. Do you need to pay a licensing fee to a music royalty body when you rent a venue and hire a live band or play your own music? You do here. How much of that cash actually gets to the artists? My guess, after a plenty of internet searching, is next to nothing for Canadian artists and zero to international artists (which would generally make up the majority of performers of the pre-recorded music played at parties such as weddings, etc.) SOCAN is the organization here to collect these monies.

I see too much waste and too few people actually benefitting from these types of tax. And oversight and public disclosure are generally a joke.

Speaking however of privatization, I'd really like to see a private sector for alcohol sales here in Ontario. Wine and spirits sales and distribution is completely government owned and controlled while also being unionized. Disgrace. Beer sales are handled through a "private" corporation owned by a couple of larger breweries - no one else is allowed to sell beer. It's all taxed at least 100% and there's no competition/incentive for selection availability. Though considering how things are handled, we do have a decently broad assortment of products to choose from. It could be a lot worse. But of course it could be a lot better. If there wasn't still such a social stigma associated with pot, I'm sure we'd see government owned distribution and/or sales outlets. Especially considering Canada is one of the biggest producers around - and certainly the source or most of the pot in the US.

A very poor example to pick on. If the BBC had instead been funded from general taxation it would have been a target of massive cut backs every time the government of the time ran into trouble. As it is the licence fee has given the BBC ring fenced funding for the last 50 years.

Without the licence fee the BBC would have been very different. I for one think it has been well worth it.

The ends doesn't justify the means, I'm afraid, including in this instance. I should hope that something similar to the situation over there would never fly here. I believe it's an overt enough and a hot-button item that would see immediate backlash. But unfortunately many other issues of taxation, levies and loss of freedoms aren't and the Canadian populace is slowly becoming very passive and apathetic.

You can't know for sure the BBC wouldn't have done equally well or better with some other form of funding structure. I'm not speculating it would have, but that the format for funding, while it has allowed the BBC to flourish, is far from what I'd consider ideal. It would be interesting to look at the financial statements to see how it's all played out actually. I imagine there's been some time of serious wastage with the licensing scheme. Do they still employ people to spy on citizens to make sure they've paid the license fee?

I'll try to be as diplomatic as my British stiff upper lip allows here, but honestly Bruno I have bared witness to you talking straight out of your arse over the past few years but that statement really does take the biscuit.

I would rather spend my days in this penal colony than in a country where beating seal pups to death is practically a national sport. And yes I know you don't all do that, I was just applying the same narrow minded ill-informed view you have of our nation to yours.

I think the BBC is a very weak thing to pick out as part of the nanny state. It is part of our national heritage, and whilst sometimes I wonder just why the licence fee is so high, I wouldn't want a TV if it couldn't pick up the BBC as it is now.

Cheers

Cris.

What is non-ideal about the TV license? Only people who use it (given, nearly everyone these days, I would bet) pay it. You don't have people complaining about their taxes going for things they don't use, and it's not an infrastructure item from which everyone benefits, regardless of direct use.

Here, here. Glad I'm not the only one.



Yes we can, it's called ITV1. Unless you have intimate knowledge of UK television, why don't you simply keep your stupid ill-informed opinions to yourself. Or better still, start posting on digitalspy.co.uk where you can meet other fuckwits who spend all day spouting nonsense about UK TV.



You mean the people who simply write to home owners who don't have television licences but have recently bought TV's? Like the people who write letters to homeowners that don't pay their council tax, or people who don't tax their cars?

If you ever do come to the UK I hope you get turned away at immigration.

I apologise to other members of the board for this post, but I've had years of having to wade past posts made by this blinkered, opinionated, self-important gobshite.

Yea that's what I meant to say

Right, bowler hats back on now. Don't look 'em in the eye and all that.

Cheers

Cris.

I'd 2nd that. On the whole I like the BBC's output, but I do wonder if they should really leave the reality TV and phone in shows to the commercial networks. I also couldn't give a toss if they put people like Ross on ITV, I think the money would be better spent on ground breaking programs like Planet Earth etc...

I'd also like to see some kind of feedback system, so us the viewers and licence fee payers could have some form of input into the direction of program productions etc... I'm not talking about control over what to commission more a general feedback loop of what sort of things the mass of public actually want to see the BBC making.

Having said that, for a non commercial part of the nanny state, they are doing a bloody good job of showing the rest how it's done with the iPlayer. So maybe we should just let them get on with it

Cheers

Cris.

Surely they still have ratings for the BBC channels?

Having worked in both the public and private sectors of UK broadcasting, I am glad the BBC exists.

TV companies like ITV only make programmes they know they can sponsor or sell advertising around. The BBC decides to make a programme based purely on individual merit.

In fact, BBC4, BBC2 and Radio 4 more than justify the £12 a month it costs me, not to mention all the online and news content.

Yea they do, but I don't really think that is a realistic representation these days. I don't know the figures but it's a very small sample size from memory. I'd like the trust to ask us the viewer in some kind of mass forum to collect views over a period of time.

Just an idea, not really very workable in the real world due to people trolling any feedback system put up on the net I suppose. Just look at digitalspy.co.uk for that.

Cheers

Cris.

Yes, and I'm sure it still has a bearing on whether a programme continues to be made or not. For the record, the BBC usually does very well compared to the likes of ITV1 and five.

Totally agree. Just wish we all had a little input into what is used to make that selection.

Look, the bbs has done it again! Take a simple question asked by Chris, turn it into something about honey and watermelon and then onto broadcasting in the UK. Love it!



Cris.

Too small if you ask me, there's about 3 sample households in the whole of Greater Manchester, so if all three watch Top Gear on a Sunday then everyone with a TV in Manchester watched Top Gear!



Ha! As an 'Industry Professional' (in my dreams maybe) I love reading Digital Spy. Some of the threads that crop up there are just so funny. I imagine a bunch of sad single 40-somethings still living at home with their mothers whinging that someone left a full stop out of a programme synopsis or that BBC 2 Wales went to black for 10 seconds.... then uploading a clip of it for other sad gits to look at!

I'm with you there! The BBC is one of the great benefits of being British.

Without it, your culture might be even more USA-ized than ours is over here, where we are overwhelmed with foreign programming from a not-so-benign neighbour. Which might explain my countryman's poor manners.

Cheers, and GSTQ!

Yep. Portland metropolitan area.


True, that, but it's still miles better than grocery-store varieties. But, if I want ultra-fresh, it's a 10 minute drive to U-pick strawberries, blueberries, raspberries, and a few other berries I can't recall off the top of my head. One of my regular kayaking rivers has a take-out spot on what's called the Fruit Loop, too.


That does sound tasty.

At the moment, our back yard is mostly un-landscaped. We'd like to do something with it, but beyond some blueberries, and maybe some raspberries, I think we're going to stay away from the fruit trees. We don't have the time, or inclination to be gardeners. My wife tries, but our green thumb is... well... more a sickly yellow, than green. You know... the yellow that plants get just before they die. :-p

Regarding the TV license, I do think the process could probably be modernized a bit (after reading this explanation of the enforcement process). With the upcoming UK digital TV transition, it would be the perfect time to switch to some sort of encrypted broadcast, and send license payers a decoder card of some sort, similar to the cable and satellite access methods. This would cut down on the paper waste and cost to send 23.5 million letters, and 3.5 million in person visits from enquiry officers.

As far as the BBC is concerned, I do agree it is a great resource for the UK, and thankfully something that is shared with the rest of the world. Top Gear is one of my favorite shows currently airing, and I'm hoping the iTunes distribution is a sign that non UK viewers may have a chance to see it legally near the broadcast date.

Speaking of rude Canadians, I had a rather unpleasant experience just recently. We were up in BC, visiting my aunt. On our way back from the shopping mall (picking up some Canadian-style gripe water for a friend), we were sitting at a stop light. A guy on a bike rides past, sees our Oregon plates, and yells through our open car window "Fucking Americans!" As we passed him, we got a second "Fuckers" tossed our way.

Interesting, that. I never expected to be the target of such hatred, in my own country. Kind of shocking, really, especially when I realize that I've never been treated as rudely by Americans, for being a Canadian (though there's been plenty of bi-directional, good-natured ribbings).

Oh, and to throw my admin hat on for a little bit here, there is an ignore user feature of the site if you do find someone's posts disagreeable. I'd much prefer people use that, vs getting upset enough to leave the site.

Unfortunately at this point in time that would be practically infeasible. The majority of viewers have already got digital reception equipment of some sort, be it terrestrial digital boxes or satellite boxes.

Most of the hardware out there is either incapable of taking a viewing card or probably was never tested with a viewing card or has a broadcaster in control of it who would charge the BBC massively for use of the viewing card.

In fact the BBC (and ITV/CH4) have gone to great lengths to get their satellite transmissions unencrypted. Until recently they all paid Sky to encrypt their transmissions to ensure that only UK residents could receive their signals. Instead they have now moved to transponders that have a smaller footprint and can't be received as far across Europe as the old ones.