4 ms·

The BBC has a very permissive attitude to it's IP back catalogue as long as it isn't stuff they're currently trying to sell. See http://www.youtube.com/user/tri

The BBC has a very permissive attitude to it's IP back catalogue as long as it isn't stuff they're currently trying to sell. See http://www.youtube.com/user/trippynet http://www.youtube.com/user/trippynet - this has been there for years, untouched. There are many other examples, try this for spoken word radio comedy: http://www.temples.me.uk/harry/read.php http://www.temples.me.uk/harry/read.php This is the advantage of being a taxpayer-funded player in the media business, they simply do not have to care about monetizing their content if they don't feel like it. It is already paid for before it's made. They have been operating an unofficial policy of allowing pirates to act as a distribution network for years. This will probably change when they launch the paid iPlayer overseas. It is also the reason why murdoch and by extension the murdoch press attack the BBC constantly. They see it as unfair, and it is, but it isn't about being fair to the murdoch empire. It's about getting a good deal on good TV for the british people.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago
Stated (and binding, as far as I know) license terms currently displayed for BBC websites: http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/personal.shtml#4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/personal.shtml#4 - personal use, excerpt: "Nothing in the Terms grants you a right or licence to use any trade mark, design right or copyright owned or controlled by the BBC or any other third party except as expressly provided in the Terms." http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/business.shtml#2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/business.shtml#2 - business terms, excerpt: "2.1.1 you may not copy, reproduce, republish, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, download, post, broadcast, transmit, distribute, lend, hire, sub-license, rent, perform, make a derivative work from, make available to the public, adapt, alter, edit, re-position, frame, rebrand, change or otherwise use in any way any BBC Online Services and/or BBC Content in whole or in part on your product or service or elsewhere or permit or assist any third party to do the same except to the extent permitted at law ("Restricted Acts");" FWIW I think that BBC created content should be under a liberal license like CC-BY-NC but it isn't; whether they press for legal action is orthogonal to the matter of it's lawfulness.

pbhjpbhj 16y ago

Stated (and binding, as far as I know) license terms currently displayed for BBC websites: http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/personal.shtml#4 http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/personal.shtml#4 - personal use, excerpt: "Nothing in the Terms grants you a right or licence to use any trade mark, design right or copyright owned or controlled by the BBC or any other third party except as expressly provided in the Terms." http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/business.shtml#2 http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/business.shtml#2 - business terms, excerpt: "2.1.1 you may not copy, reproduce, republish, disassemble, decompile, reverse engineer, download, post, broadcast, transmit, distribute, lend, hire, sub-license, rent, perform, make a derivative work from, make available to the public, adapt, alter, edit, re-position, frame, rebrand, change or otherwise use in any way any BBC Online Services and/or BBC Content in whole or in part on your product or service or elsewhere or permit or assist any third party to do the same except to the extent permitted at law ("Restricted Acts");" FWIW I think that BBC created content should be under a liberal license like CC-BY-NC but it isn't; whether they press for legal action is orthogonal to the matter of it's lawfulness.