On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:45:34 +0000, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> __/ [ Erik Funkenbusch ] on Sunday 31 December 2006 09:49 \__
>> Once again Roy is in flagrant disregard of copyright, and is doing so in
>> more than one way.
>> Notice he's using a picture stolen from the BBC, which he has modified in
>> addition to using the BBC trademark.
>> From the BBC's own site:
>> "The names, images and logos identifying the BBC, BBC Worldwide or third
>> parties and their products and services are subject to copyright, design
>> rights and trade marks of the BBC, BBC Worldwide Limited and/or third
>> parties. Nothing contained in these terms shall be construed as conferring
>> by implication, estoppel or otherwise any licence or right to use any
>> trademark, patent, design right or copyright of the BBC, BBC Worldwide
>> Limited, or any other third party."
>> "You may not copy, reproduce, republish, download, post, broadcast,
>> transmit, make available to the public, or otherwise use bbc.co.uk content
>> in any way except for your own personal, non-commercial use. You also agree
>> not to adapt, alter or create a derivative work from any bbc.co.uk content
>> except for your own personal, non-commercial use. Any other use of
>> bbc.co.uk content requires the prior written permission of the BBC."
>> So let's review the violations, shall we?
>> 1) He's copied and reproduced copyrighted works without permission.
>> 2) He's altered (or created a derived work) from a copyrighted work, again
>> without permission.
>> 3) He's used BBC tradmarks without permission, not to mention reproduced
>> them and appears to be trying to confer BBC sanctioning of his works.
>> 4) He's doing all this for commercial profit, as he recieves ad revenue
>> from the pages.
>> 5) He's making it seem like an article, published on a different site, is
>> connected to the BBC.
>> One would have thought he'd have learned his lesson from the last debacle,
>> but no... Roy willfully violates copyright laws at his whim.
>> That's Roy "Do as I say, not as I do" Schestowitz - Pirate for you.
> That's Erik "drama drama drama" Funkenbusch.
I thought you had me killfiled Roy? I guess you're a liar, but we knew
that. And don't claim you saw someone elses response, because you're the
> Grow up please. The BBC was acknowledged when I, as a 22 year old, first put
> up such images in a new blog (shortly afterwards moving to
> http://www.sxc.hu/ ) . Here. Let me help you.
> OMG! What a thief.
Look again at the BBC terms of service. Nowhere does it say that
"acknowledging" them gives you the right to use their copyrighted works.
In fact, it says very explicitly:
"Nothing contained in these terms shall be construed as conferring by
implication, estoppel or otherwise any licence or right to use any
trademark, patent, design right or copyright of the BBC, BBC Worldwide
Limited, or any other third party."
And just because your adsense revenue isn't enough to pay your bills
(another lie, since you claimed before that your excess profits were
donated to charity) doesn't change the fact that you're collecting revenue.
Lack of profit doesn't make you non-commercial.
You are in willful direct and explicit violation of the BBC's terms of
service and copyright law, and you simply don't care. You have no moral