[samworm]

My argument, and I sent this too them when they were doing a consultation a while ago, is that they shouldn't be buying content that they can't use for public service purposes. We have many good sources of movies in the UK, and many of them are "free" at the point of use (ie advert funded). Let them show Madagascar, and while they do that the BBC can run some other program. They should remove themselves from the content purchasing market if the terms are too restrictive to allow them to meet their public remit. We don't /need/ these films on the BBC. They could run some of the content they're currently relegating the digital ghettos of BBC3 and BBC4 instead.

[AnthonyMouse]

>They could run some of the content they're currently relegating the digital ghettos of BBC3 and BBC4 instead.

Better yet, take the money they're paying to run Madagascar and use it to fund more original BBC content.

[takluyver]

The counterargument is that, if you canvassed license fee payers, I bet more of them would care about seeing Madagascar without ads than about DRM issues. So should the BBC pursue what a small number of people loudly claim to be the 'public interest', or should they aim for what the public is interested in?

Thinking more strategically, the BBC needs some high profile popular things, including imported movies, to keep people on side. If they lose their popularity, it's only a matter of time before a politician wins votes by promising to slash the license fee.

[seabee]

Now every TV broadcast is digital, BBC3/4 are less 'ghetto' and more 'dumping grounds'