The deal differs from other sound libraries in that educational purposes are covered by a quite different licence to commercial purposes. This is reflective of the mandate of the Royal Charter that incorporates the BBC, that it "support learning". The various restrictions on endorsement and representation and suchlike in the RemArc licence reflect the Royal Charter's imposition that the BBC itself be non-commercial.
You can compare the commercial licence with that of others for yourself. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24587496 for starters. Notice the sorts of terms that commercial sound libraries impose.
Notice also that the commercial licence is not sold by the BBC. It is sold by a U.S. company named Pro Sound Effects. The Royal Charter prohibits for-profit activities by the BBC itself. So the profits from commercial licences are probably not going back to the BBC.
Thats very interesting, you seem to know a lot about how the BBC is structured. Do you mind if I ask how the for-profit prohibition of their charter aligns with the ad-supported international BBC News websites and broadcasts on BBC Worldwide?
I used to work at BBC and was part of the team that split the BBC News website up into UK and International (UKFS and IFS) and some of the early advertising additions.
BBC Worldwide is an independent for-profit organization and, for the most part, responsible for the commercialization of BBC assets outside of the UK as the BBC itself is not able to commercialize.
Assets like Top Gear are an example of that - the show's production budget is(/was) unusually high because the BBC produces it for the world market where it knows it will generate a significant return selling the licenses (or broadcasting on BBC America etc). Compare that to domestic shows, such as Have I Got News For You, which is not shown abroad.
The advertising on BBC Website is placed by BBC Worldwide and they receive the money from that.
Profits made by BBC Worldwide are dispersed back into the BBC itself.
Aside from Worldwide the BBC has split up and sold or commercialized other assets. Much of the technical infrastructure it owned became RedBee and was invested in by Castle and/or Siemens (my memory is fuzzy). They also broke off their studio facilities into BBC Studios which I believe now operate commercially.
The BBC has been pushed considerably by Tory governments to becomes smaller over time which has resulted in these sell offs and break offs.
I've not worked at the BBC for 15 years but follow it closely and can probably answer other questions you might have.
That is really cool, thank you for taking the time to answer my question. I really consider the BBC is a national treasure and I hope we can preserve it.
I know as much as anyone else who has actually read the Royal Charter. (-:
The Charter covers "UK Public Services" and the "World Service", as does the Agreement with the Minister of the Crown. The World Service is a specific thing, which you can read about for yourself.
* So public service broadcasting to other countries isn't within the terms of the Charter.
* Commercial activities are prohibited to the BBC itself. They are limited to commercial subsidiaries.
The upshot of this is that services that you get outwith the U.K. are not from the BBC. They are from commercial subsidiary companies, such as BBC Studios for example, or from joint venture companies. BBC Studios is what broadcasts BBC content such as BBC America outwith the United Kingdom. Similarly, the WWW site that is served up to computers outwith the United Kingdom isn't provided by the BBC. It is provided by BBC Global News Ltd, another commercial subsidiary. It's quite different to the WWW site that is seen within the U.K..
The commercial subsidiaries aren't funded by the Licence Fee, and the BBC itself is not permitted to make a profit from its dealings with them, which must be "at arm's length" (to quote the Agreement).
I'm missing something, obviously. I know the "commercial" BBC made a killing from Top Gear show sales to other regions, but surely the rights to sell it were not given to them for free by the nonprofit arm?
If the license fee pays to make show x, who _eventually_ profits from the sale of x to the US?
I've no idea where the profits made by the commercial subsidiaries eventually go, except that the BBC itself is not allowed to operate for profit. That said, you seem to be missing that giving something away for free and selling it for a profit are not exhaustive of the possibilities. (-:
The key is, I think, that a UK resident should not have to pay anything (other than the license fee) or be subject to advertising to enjoy BBC content.
So something produced for a UK audience can be sold outside the UK and the profits used by the BBC to make more content.
Definitions of these things vary greatly in each country, but a 'non-profit' may sell things, where I am.
What's important is that the 'selling of things' is targeted to 'recoup costs', not 'make profit'.
An example, hosting an event and charging $5 per seat, to recoup the costs of renting the theatre. And to pay talent.
Maybe this is different in the UK?
And, you keep saying "operate for profit", which makes me think it is part of their charter, instead of saying "non-profit" which makes me think of my above logic.
It was a few years ago, but last time I looked at iPlayer (arrive the time the license requirements changed to cover online) you had to put your license number in? (I guess perhaps that was a limited trial or something).
As I recall (I think I watched some theater a few months ago), you had to check a box that you had a license but you didn't have to actually enter anything.
You can compare the commercial licence with that of others for yourself. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24587496 for starters. Notice the sorts of terms that commercial sound libraries impose.
Notice also that the commercial licence is not sold by the BBC. It is sold by a U.S. company named Pro Sound Effects. The Royal Charter prohibits for-profit activities by the BBC itself. So the profits from commercial licences are probably not going back to the BBC.