Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
pretty much wetting my pants right now.
This is a huge deal for any Whovian.

----------

It does seem stupid in retrospect, but you have to remember that at the time the home video cassette had not been invented yet and there were too few channels to show reruns. On top of that the magnetic tapes were expensive, so reusing them saved a lot of money.
actually back in the 60's I am pretty sure it was all shot on and archived to film.
 
Please on Netflix soon streaming and a Apple TV update where it fixes the stuttering and freezing issue when watching Netflix.
 
Sure, sell it outside the UK but given that we've already paid for the damn thing to be made and restored it makes no sense that we should have to pay for it again.

I'm fairly sure that if we examined the terms of said license it does NOT include the rights to having free home video which is in effect what this is.

You are paying a license for the current broadcast tv at this time, not to get everything for life in all forms for free. Just like in the US I pay for HBO to watch Game of Thrones etc but I don't get sent a free box set of all shows each season.

And I'm betting that that license fee did not and has never paid for the restoration or remastering of any show just as it has not these.
 
The more profit these episode generate, the more weight the BBC will put behind looking for more of them. As a "massive" fan, surely that's a good thing? I'm more than happy to pay $10 for something I thought I'd never get the chance to see.

Many folks would be happy to pay much much more. And the BBC could have easily charged that. Remember that the typical price of a tv show is $2.99 an episode. So these sets could have cost twice as much. Frankly I'm shocked they didn't.
 
Great news, but I wish iTunes would actually sell TV shows in my country :/
 
I've never been a Doctor Who watcher, and am happy they found the episodes. But this should NOT be in iTunes. It should be free, on iPlayer for UK residents, along with every other episode from the back catalogue.

Sure, sell it outside the UK but given that we've already paid for the damn thing to be made and restored it makes no sense that we should have to pay for it again.

To put it in perspective for anyone in a country without a license fee.

We pay £145.50 per year. At todays rate that's about $232 USD, so $19.33 a month.

If you were paying for Netflix, and were then told "sorry, all this new stuff is premium, you gotta pay extra for it", you'd be pretty pissed, and netflix is only $7.99 a month.

I completely agree. I'm sick of the expense of funding their 7 episode per season, half hour format shows that all seem to feature the same actors or comedians most of the time anyway and I'm even more fed up that everyone HAS to fund it by law whether they want it or not. Everything ever broadcast should be on iPlayer indefinitely. If people want to buy DVD or Blu-Ray versions, they can do but the whole BBC archive should be online and more to the point, only accessible to licence holders to the point where you can't even access it unless you input your TV licence details first.

----------

You are paying a license for the current broadcast tv at this time, not to get everything for life in all forms for free. Just like in the US I pay for HBO to watch Game of Thrones etc but I don't get sent a free box set of all shows each season.

And I'm betting that that license fee did not and has never paid for the restoration or remastering of any show just as it has not these.

Your point is invalid because we're legally FORCED to fund the BBC and that means ALL BBC activities from restoring old shows to creating new one's is funded by the same means. You couldn't be more presumptious and wrong if you tried.
 
No, the BBC started using magnetic tapes in the mid-to-late-fifties.

Indeed, only two Doctor Who stories were ever shot on film - the first John Pertwee story (recently released on blu-ray) and the TV-Movie.

However in the old days British shows were transferred to film for foreign sales and that's how lost episodes have been recovered over the years.

----------

that means ALL BBC activities from restoring old shows to creating new one's is funded by the same means. You couldn't be more presumptious and wrong if you tried.

Um no, that would be you.
 
Um no, that would be you.

Um yes actually, by charging international audiences for watching BBC content, they recoup the cost of not receiving any licence fee from them while every single household in the UK are forced against their will BY LAW into giving the BBC £2.75 a week for their entire life. Nice try on the smugness though, I'm sure it felt good at the time :p
 
Last edited:
Your point is invalid because we're legally FORCED to fund the BBC and that means ALL BBC activities from restoring old shows to creating new one's is funded by the same means. You couldn't be more presumptious and wrong if you tried.

Restoring old shows is not done using the license fee. It is handled by BBC Worldwide who operate as a commercial business, and are forbidden from using license fee money. I'm afraid the 'epic fail' is on your end... :(

Simply paying your license fee does not mean you automatically own BBC programmes, any more than you automatically own Starsky and Hutch or Star Trek (two US shows the BBC used your license fee to acquire) or Raiders of the Lost Ark (a movie the BBC used your license fee to pay for.) If you attend a concert or a live show, you don't automatically own any recording of the show that might subsequently be sold, even if the recording is of the actual gig you attended. If you bought Sgt. Pepper on LP, you don't automatically own the CD, or the iTunes downloads... It may suck, but that's just the way life is..!
 
Um yes actually, by charging international audiences for watching BBC content, they recoup the cost of not receiving any licence fee from them while every single household in the UK are forced against their will BY LAW into giving the BBC £2.75 a week for their entire life. Nice try on the smugness though, I'm sure it felt good at the time :p

Okay, a few facts:

(1) You don't have to pay a penny of the UK tv license fee if you can't receive BBC programming.

(2) Over 75's don't pay anything at all.

(3) As unfair as a license may seem (and it is, after all, a form of opt-in direct taxation), it is at least more transparent and fair than commercial television. With commercial television, the cost of the programming is paid for by advertisers, who ultimately include it in the cost of their products. This would be all fine and dandy if advertising lowered the price of products, but there is no correlation between the cost of brands and their level of tv advertising -- indeed often the cheapest brands are the ones that do not advertise on tv. So commercial television is a form of indirect taxation, much like VAT; a hidden cost within your weekly shop that the average fool in the street doesn't even realise is there.

Pay-per-view is the fairest way to pay for tv. The license fee may be akin to a tax, but at least it is a direct tax where we know how much we're paying. How much do we pay for ITV, Channel 4 and Sky? (And please don't tell me you believe Cola-Cola and BMW pay for their programmes out of the goodness of their hearts..!)
 
Restoring old shows is not done using the license fee. It is handled by BBC Worldwide who operate as a commercial business, and are forbidden from using license fee money. I'm afraid the 'epic fail' is on your end... :(

Proof? All I see is that BBC World Wide announced it. Nothing about how the restoration process was funded.

Simply paying your license fee does not mean you automatically own BBC programmes, any more than you automatically own Starsky and Hutch or Star Trek (two US shows the BBC used your license fee to acquire) or Raiders of the Lost Ark (a movie the BBC used your license fee to pay for.) If you attend a concert or a live show, you don't automatically own any recording of the show that might subsequently be sold, even if the recording is of the actual gig you attended. If you bought Sgt. Pepper on LP, you don't automatically own the CD, or the iTunes downloads... It may suck, but that's just the way life is..!

I'm sure I suggested they STREAM them from iPlayer and lock out anyone who doesn't have a TV Licence or live outside the UK while still offering DVD/Blu-Ray versions of shows for people who want to OWN them. I guess you cherry pick what you think validates the point you're making but here's what I wrote:

Everything ever broadcast should be on iPlayer indefinitely. If people want to buy DVD or Blu-Ray versions, they can do but the whole BBC archive should be online and more to the point, only accessible to licence holders to the point where you can't even access it unless you input your TV licence details first.

Seems pretty obvious what I meant doesn't it?

Okay, a few facts:

(1) You don't have to pay a penny of the UK tv license fee if you can't receive BBC programming.

(2) Over 75's don't pay anything at all.

Here's why they're not facts at all:

1). A TV licence is required if you own any receiving equipment the BBC officially describe below. Find a BBC source where it DOESN'T say this and you have a point: -

The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/

You'd have to prove to them that your TV can't receive BBC programming before you don't need a licence. They have everyone over a barrel with Mobile phones, computers etc… being classed as receiving equipment. Hence my point about FORCED to pay for.

2) Simply a clause in the first point. Lets face it, by 74 someone's already funded the BBC for most of their adult life. It's a perfect fair concession for elderly people just like bus passes or winter heating allowance.

(3) As unfair as a license may seem (and it is, after all, a form of opt-in direct taxation), it is at least more transparent and fair than commercial television. With commercial television, the cost of the programming is paid for by advertisers, who ultimately include it in the cost of their products. This would be all fine and dandy if advertising lowered the price of products, but there is no correlation between the cost of brands and their level of tv advertising -- indeed often the cheapest brands are the ones that do not advertise on tv. So commercial television is a form of indirect taxation, much like VAT; a hidden cost within your weekly shop that the average fool in the street doesn't even realise is there.

Pay-per-view is the fairest way to pay for tv. The license fee may be akin to a tax, but at least it is a direct tax where we know how much we're paying. How much do we pay for ITV, Channel 4 and Sky? (And please don't tell me you believe Cola-Cola and BMW pay for their programmes out of the goodness of their hearts..!)

You almost have half a point there about the taxation/advertising issue but on top of the 18 minutes or more per hour of adverts on commercial TV, you have to pay a subscription to Sky or a cable company to receive a lot of the channels that are still supported by advertising even after paying the subscription cost. Also, in the UK, you often have to wait until after a US/Canadian show has been broadcast in it's entirety before you even get to watch it on a subscription only channel. (By which time, so much plot has been given away online, you might as well download it and wait for the DVD/Blu-Ray to come out).

All of these services and channels offer on-demand box sets of an exhaustive catalogue of the shows they broadcast BECAUSE YOU'RE PAYING FOR THEM BY CHOICE and they want to remain competitive with each other. The BBC with iPlayer only offer limited catch up of recent programming, YOU'RE FORCED TO PAY FOR IT and with guaranteed funding, they don't have to worry about competition "Because of the unique way the BBC is funded" is one of their favourite phrases!

I don't get why this perfectly valid point is so hard to understand.
 
Last edited:
We pay them ~£12 a month as it is for the rubbish they keep putting out, the least they can do is stick them on iPlayer for a week.

Oh my god. £12 per month. How will you cope?

Honestly, it's a piffling amount of money. Compare that to Sky subscriptions, where if you want anything decent at all you pay well in excess of £30 per month and over £60 if you want movies and 3D. And for your £12 per month you get at least 8 dedicated channels with countless regional variants, oodles of radio stations, iPlayer for free (unlike Netflix or Hulu).

Think of it this way: count up the number of hours you and your household spend watching the BBC's output and then see how many hours that equates to in the cinema at £8 per person per showing. You're getting a blindingly good deal. And you aren't even subjected to adverts unlike nearly all the other paid-for visual entertainment options out there.

I'm quite happy to pay the license fee. For what I get it's an absolute bargain.
 
Oh my god. £12 per month. How will you cope?

Honestly, it's a piffling amount of money. Compare that to Sky subscriptions, where if you want anything decent at all you pay well in excess of £30 per month and over £60 if you want movies and 3D. And for your £12 per month you get at least 8 dedicated channels with countless regional variants, oodles of radio stations, iPlayer for free (unlike Netflix or Hulu).

Think of it this way: count up the number of hours you and your household spend watching the BBC's output and then see how many hours that equates to in the cinema at £8 per person per showing. You're getting a blindingly good deal. And you aren't even subjected to adverts unlike nearly all the other paid-for visual entertainment options out there.

I'm quite happy to pay the license fee. For what I get it's an absolute bargain.

I can count the entire BBC output I consume in an entire year and it doesn't even amount to 2 entire seasons of any 22 episode run show from the US/Canada that I can view via a subscription service who more often than not, make the entire series available on-demand after it's broadcast.

The BBC is not good value for money on any level. You're comparing very budget 30 minute format shows in 7 episode per season segments to 22 episode, 42 minute (1 hour with adverts) shows with far higher budgets. You also get a massive variety of channels to choose from, a lot of which will re-broadcast old BBC shows that the BBC have licenced them to show so they get even more money that way too.
 
Think of it this way: count up the number of hours you and your household spend watching the BBC's output and then see how many hours that equates to in the cinema at £8 per person per showing.

Our actual BBC content consumption is pretty much zero. I think the only time I ever watch their stuff is if Sky News is showing something else instead of news, and even then it would only be to have a quick look at the headlines.

I have no problem paying for a TV subscription for channels I WANT to get. But I don't see how, at any point it makes sense to be forced to fund a channel I couldn't care less about, just to watch other channels.

It's an archaic system. It made sense when the BBC was the only TV provider, but as soon as ITV showed up, the BBC should have switched to the commercial model.

If you were told your TV subscription was increasing £12 ($19.15) a month to cover a new channel that shows nothing you're interested in - you'd be pissed.
 
I've never been a Doctor Who watcher, and am happy they found the episodes. But this should NOT be in iTunes. It should be free, on iPlayer for UK residents, along with every other episode from the back catalogue.

Sure, sell it outside the UK but given that we've already paid for the damn thing to be made and restored it makes no sense that we should have to pay for it again.
So what your saying here is that BBC Worldwide (the company that who holds the licenses, not the BBC, the corporation funded by the TV license), cannot sell these episodes?
BBC iplayer is a BBC product streaming content to the UK for free, and come commonwealth countries for a fee.

Usually, after a certain amount of days after initial broadcast days the licence is then passed onto BBC Worldwide for DVD manufacture and digital distribution.
The Doctor Who episodes come under the BBC Worldwide ownership and so they can distribute i how they like.

BBC, and BBC Worldwide are two separate enitities, one is funded by TV licence the other by sale of digital content and DVDs etc. Please do not get the two mixed up.
 
Before you all pipe in about the tv license being a crock:

Firstly it's enforced and regulated by the Government, and has been frozen for a number of years, and continues to be until 2017.

The BBC do not set it, nor do they receive the whole amount, as some of the funds goes to arts and other broadcasters.

For the amount of content both Live Broadcast and Streamed 40p a day is nothing.

What would you prefer :

4+ TV channels, soon to be 4 HD Channels, FM, AM, Digital and internet streaming radio, streaming live content via iplayer, all the news coverage from around the world, documentaries from the deepest darkest places, and sports up to the wazoo for 40p a day
or
All of the above with adverts inserted into each and every piece of content every 5 minutes to cover the cost?

There is always an alternative.
Remove the arial from your house, detune your TV, and pay £xx for DVDs, £xx for Netflix. Watch iplayer post broadcast content for nothing, gratis, free because the BBC are like that, its for the freetards. You can even watch Channel 4, ITV, Channel 5 streaming too so you dont miss out on your episodes of Hollyoaks.

We are not the only ones in the UK that have a TV licence, Norway has one - costs twice as much and thats taken out of your wages.
 
The BBC with iPlayer only offer limited catch up of recent programming, YOU'RE FORCED TO PAY FOR IT and with guaranteed funding, they don't have to worry about competition "Because of the unique way the BBC is funded" is one of their favourite phrases!
I don't get why this perfectly valid point is so hard to understand.

It's an old point, one which is older than a rotten apple in the head of a dead horse.

Because of the way the BBC is funded, iPlayer is a FREE service for watching content post broadcast. See the word FREE there? They are able to provide this to freetards who don't want to pay for a TV license, but still want the content.

There are always choices.

1. Don't pay your TV license - see there's a choice, and argue it in court. You are however a british citizen (I presume), and so are subject to british law.

If you feel this unfair, then please rally your friends, and at the next general election, vote for a governmental body in favour of abolishment to the BBC and the TV License.

See? there's a choice.
 
It's an old point, one which is older than a rotten apple in the head of a dead horse.

Because of the way the BBC is funded, iPlayer is a FREE service for watching content post broadcast. See the word FREE there? They are able to provide this to freetards who don't want to pay for a TV license, but still want the content.

There are always choices.

1. Don't pay your TV license - see there's a choice, and argue it in court. You are however a british citizen (I presume), and so are subject to british law.

If you feel this unfair, then please rally your friends, and at the next general election, vote for a governmental body in favour of abolishment to the BBC and the TV License.

See? there's a choice.

I'm sure you felt really smug and self-satisfied writing all that presumptuous nonsense in an attempt to "correct" my factual statements with an opinion but unfortunately iPlayer is most certainly NOT free. It's funded by the licence fee, a point I was making with links to the BBC to confirm it. The reason they offer their content online, via Freeview/Cable etc... and on the radio is so YOU HAVE NO CHOICE but to receive it and then they can demand a license fee because ownership of the equipment used to consume BBC content is enough proof that BY LAW, you MUST pay for it!

Your suggestion of simply not turning on any of the exhaustive list of BBC designated "Recieving Equipment" is rediculous also. It includes anything with an aerial or internet access!

Doctor Who fans have even more of a beef with the BBC after the fiasco of them shipping DVDs to international customers who don't pay any licence fee before they broadcast the actual show in the UK. They even bribed people with additional content just to try and avoid online spoilers.
 
Last edited:
"Nigeria, Africa"

Thanks for the clarification. Please maintain this informative style by referring to your location as USA, North America.

Thank you

Mark
United Kingdom, Europe.

It reminds me of a fashion among boys when I was young to give their address in full such as :

John Smith
21 Any Street
Anytown
England
Europe
Planet Earth
The Solar System
The Milky Way

----------

As such... It's quite within their rights to sell the episodes on iTunes. Frankly, it's MUCH better than us fans having to wait for a DVD release, which quite frankly is the only other feasible route we will have to see them.

We are getting a DVD release.

The Enemy of the World (25 Nov 2013) and The Web of Fear (24 Feb 2014).

I don't think this can really be called an iTunes exclusive. iTunes simply has an advance release instead.

The cynic in me does think that this is an attempt to get some people to buy twice. I know people who have already bought the iTunes release to get the episodes immediately AND will buy the DVDs when released

----------

"But the UK isn't a part of Europe!!!!111oneoneone"

Correct, I live on the South coast and I can NEARLY see Europe.
 
I'm sure you felt really smug and self-satisfied writing all that presumptuous nonsense in an attempt to "correct" my factual statements with an opinion but unfortunately iPlayer is most certainly NOT free. It's funded by the licence fee, a point I was making with links to the BBC to confirm it. The reason they offer their content online, via Freeview/Cable etc... and on the radio is so YOU HAVE NO CHOICE but to receive it and then they can demand a license fee because ownership of the equipment used to consume BBC content is enough proof that BY LAW, you MUST pay for it!

Your suggestion of simply not turning on any of the exhaustive list of BBC designated "Recieving Equipment" is rediculous also. It includes anything with an aerial or internet access!

Doctor Who fans have even more of a beef with the BBC after the fiasco of them shipping DVDs to international customers who don't pay any licence fee before they broadcast the actual show in the UK. They even bribed people with additional content just to try and avoid online spoilers.

All I can say is read:
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_bbc_iplayer/tvlicence
Which says you DO NOT need a TV licence to view catchup content.
What you are saying here is that every computer, tablet and phone needs a TV licence. It does not. There is a level of trust the BBC are giving people here when it comes to mobile devices and computers.

The licence is for live or near live broadcast, and per household.

But hey, I'm happy to pay it, you're not. Laws the law, abide by it. If you think it's unfair, take steps to change it, you have the power.

In time I'm sure The licence will go. TVs can be bought freely, and there will be no public service broadcasting. We have to pay for every little bit of content that's made, with adverts appearing in relationship to the things you've seen. It's inevitable, and will cost a lot more than the licence fee is now.

Until then 40p a day for everything I possibly want from Aunty, without the adverts, is a very small price to pay.
 
All I can say is read:
http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/about_bbc_iplayer/tvlicence
Which says you DO NOT need a TV licence to view catchup content.
What you are saying here is that every computer, tablet and phone needs a TV licence. It does not. There is a level of trust the BBC are giving people here when it comes to mobile devices and computers.

The licence is for live or near live broadcast, and per household.

But hey, I'm happy to pay it, you're not. Laws the law, abide by it. If you think it's unfair, take steps to change it, you have the power.

In time I'm sure The licence will go. TVs can be bought freely, and there will be no public service broadcasting. We have to pay for every little bit of content that's made, with adverts appearing in relationship to the things you've seen. It's inevitable, and will cost a lot more than the licence fee is now.

Until then 40p a day for everything I possibly want from Aunty, without the adverts, is a very small price to pay.

Still not sinking in is it? The catch up content loophole is yet another clause like the over 74s one. You still have to be licensed to own any of the receiving equipment you need to view the catch up content!

You can state any expense as a daily amount to make it sound like a pitiful sum, the same way you can state a pitiful hourly rate as a salary and it instantly becomes a 5 figure sum. It's still in it's accumulated form, an expense that's required by law that offers very little value for money considering the amount of consumed content compared with the alternatives. What isn't sinking in about that fact too?
 
Tired of this debate, and I do get your point.

The TV licence is a tax, pure and simple - a rather transparent one at that.
You pay the tax if you have a device capable of receiving live broadcasts.
Its been around for over 50 years, and is part of UK life. At least I feel I get something back from the TV Tax I pay in the form of BBC content in all it's forms.

Its old and society has progressed. I'm sure there are people thinking about how to change this. There are also people who wholly object to it, but cannot be bothered to make any effort to change it other than complain on forums.

Some countries have abolished it. They've moved it to a subscription based model to pay, some pay by the hour, and most have advertising, and content biased to the companies that own them (ehem eye of murdoch).

As I said, it will probably change in the UK, either it gets added into your tax from your wages, or you have a subscription for BBC, and another for ITV, and another for C4, and another for Channel5 - all I think would be a lot more than £12/month.

The current TV Licence fee in my opinion if a lesser evil that what BSkyB would have us have.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.