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.
