Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: Looks like Roy is once again infringing copyrights...

  • Subject: Re: Looks like Roy is once again infringing copyrights...
  • From: ed <ed@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 10:55:21 GMT
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: NTL
  • References: <1hhu3f705xsm8$.dlg@funkenbusch.com>
  • Xref: ellandroad.demon.co.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:474658
On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 03:49:08 -0600
Erik Funkenbusch <erik@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> http://schestowitz.com/Weblog/archives/2006/12/28/time-to-rething-waste-culture-amid-global-warming/
> 
> 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:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/terms/
> 
> "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."
> 
> Also:
> 
> "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.

getting some ad revenue does not amount to being a commercial
organisation. that's straw clutching. you would also have to show that
roy is not using the revenue to pay for the hosting of the site, unless
it's a second income it's not really anything to talk about.

roy's site is non-commercial, therefore not in breach of any copyright.

bbc dont care if you reproduce anything from their site, or
radio/television, PROVIDING it is for non-commercial uses. have you
ever heard of the OU? that's designed so that any school can replay,
the programmes.

the bbc is quite relaxed about copyright generally. they're not an evil
empire.

-- 
Regards, Ed                      :: http://s5h.net/u?l
proud bash hacker
Chuck Norris is so fast he can turn off his bedroom light and be 
under the covers before the room gets dark. 

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index