Open Source... Television? 200
jarit0z writes: "In Robert Cringely's latest column he toys with the idea of creating a TV show to go along with his rants. The show would be freely (as in beer) distributable, to hopefully keep bandwidth costs down. And it would also be freely (as in speech) modifiable, since he would also be releasing the "source" or raw footage of the show. Very interesting ideas if you ask me."
would this be interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Start with (Score:3, Insightful)
It's called a web cast.
I don't think anyone would want the Raw footage, just the edited stuff. Basically, he's saying it would be freely redsitributeable. This is not the same as open source. Open Source (and Free Software) is a solution to the problem of people getting you dependent on a software product with not way to alter it. But with film, there is not source code.
At least with music, you can claim open source by offering the sheet music or something. Maybe the script for a play as well. But again, that is a little different.
Want to keep bandwidth costs down? (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps PBS programming can save us once again from the clutches of the information monopoly industries.
This is gonna be big! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Some folks are producing a feature film this wa (Score:2, Insightful)
X has a point (Score:2, Insightful)
The aspect that I like is that he is calling attention to a really weird aspect of the broadcast => net transition: that distributing a 'free' broadcast show over the net is viewed as nasty piracy.
Example: I happen to be a fan of the CART racing series. There is no broadcast agreement here in Denmark, so I can't see the races. Even thought these races are shown on broadcast TV, people are scared to DivX them and put them out on the net, cuz the rights are in question.
If such a broadcast were GPL'd, the show could be shared, creating fans.
Also, before
-Dennis
Re:pbs (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, total federal funding to CPB/PBS is about $250 million, only 12.2% of CPB's total budget (figures from CPB). This is less than 0.0005% of the total federal budget
It is precisely because of that eency-weency amount of federal funding that the previous poster is able to claim what he/she did. With any amount of federal funding, there comes with it all sorts of regulations, requirements, etc. For example, consider the National Endowment for the Arts, every year come budget time they get hammered for supporting anything even remotely controversial. This too comes with the miniscule amount of federal money it gets.
But I have to agree... they really should cut off the funding and let these agencies become privatized and do their own thing. If PBS were to go under, it is not as though anyone would become sick or killed, hence, its not really a needed government service. However, there clearly there is a market for people who want to watch stuff on PBS, and with the rise of numerous cable channels which offer the same kind of programming as you can get on PBS (e.g., TLC, Discovery, History Channel, etc.), it becomes easier to make the assertion that the government should not be subsidizing its own TV network.
A Lot of You Really Don't Get Free Media (Score:5, Insightful)
First, Free Media is not a new concept. Many of us have been kicking around the idea for some time. My own work, Autonomy [expressivefreedom.org] is going to be licensed under a free license (you can see a draft of one possible license here [expressivefreedom.org]), and there are numerous other projects as well (OpenContent [harvard.edu] and Copyright's Commons [harvard.edu] to name just two).
Free Media is about creating a public commons of content that others can use, modify, copy, redistribute, and incorporate into their own projects freely. There are caveates (like you have to make clear the end product is different from what the original creator may have intended), but the idea is that you could, for example, take an old Gilligan's Island rerun, colorize it, do some digital overlays, change the soundtrack, and add some more creative editing to create Alien Island
adamy writes "A ditital Camera, and A Website [is all you need]", adding "I don't think anyone would want the Raw footage, just the edited stuff." Again, this completely misses the point. Maybe you'd like to redo the special effects of an old movie and the original green-screen (or blue screen) footage is exactly what you want. Maybe you want to do a documentary on how documentaries slant information
Free Media is about empowering artists to build upon the works of others, and to stop having to reinvent the wheel for every project (which really only the big studios can afford to do
As for 'Open Source' television already existing
Re:pbs (Score:2, Insightful)
Take for example, some great work by the late Allan McFee on the Eclectic Circus. This material should certainly be public, but the only mention of Allan relates to his death. This archive could be hosted on the CBC site; it is brilliant stuff. But sadly, no archive appears on the site, and his memory fades.
Re:not pointless at all (Score:1, Insightful)
It's not pointless at all. Get some content editing skills, maybe you'll appreciate content.
Indeed.
My perspective: Open licenses are great for learning; to me, it's one of the really cool but often overlooked benefits of this whole movement.
Hundreds of kids are, at this very moment, geeking out on Quake 1 source, thanks to the GPL. What other way do they have to get right at the innards of a world-class real-time 3D game engine? What could be better at keeping those kids' attention while they wrangle themselves some C-skills? Are they making Quake 4 out of that source? Of course not, but they have a tremendous advantage as a result of a particular license and the accessibility it affords.
Raw footage of something other than your dog or your classmates -- Cringely's interview with Steve Jobs or whatever -- is an equally amazing teaching resource that otherwise would be locked in a vault somewhere.