| Sorry Clitheroe Kid you are also wrong on this point. The BBC television programmes audio/visual AND sound track only versions that have been copied and released through this user group are in direct violation of the terms and conditions of the BBC that it sets with it's audience. Same as the radio programmes, new or old. "...and you may not assist anyone to, or attempt to, reverse engineer, decompile, disassemble, adapt, modify, copy, reproduce, lend, hire, rent, perform, sub-license, make available to the public..." "All copyright, trade marks, design rights, patents and other intellectual property rights (registered and unregistered) in and on BBC Online Services and BBC Content belong to the BBC and/or third parties (which may include you or other users). The BBC reserves all of its rights in BBC Content and BBC Online Services. 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." Source: BBC T&Cs Also the Australian copyright law defers to the copyright law of the country from where the copyright programme material comes from, so that will be UK law then. I provided the link in my last message on this point. The fact remains that the BBC may turn a blind eye to this group maybe out of the grace of a person within the JAM programme chain that might have been consulted about the on-line fan base here. HOWEVER it is not a clever act to go poking the BBC via a random email to say "Hey we are her copying and sharing YOUR stuff internationally" It is the money grabbers with BBC Worldwide Ltd that will invoke their power to close this gap. BBC Worldwide Ltd have better copyright lawyers than you or I can afford - the best policy is to do what we do quietly and not go poking the hand that feeds, common sense to those with an IQ in double figures surely? |
--- In just-a-minute@..., Clitheroe Kid <clitheroekid@...> wrote:
>
>
> Do you have a view on what the likely outcome might be, if the BBC was to sue in Australia for a breach of copyright in circumstances where no infringement would occur if the same act was done in London, i.e. making a gift of a copy (non-commercial use)?
>
> In other words, is non-commercial use a breach of copyright in Australia?
| Jan | Feb | Mar | Apr | May | Jun | Jul | Aug | Sep | Oct | Nov | Dec | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2019 | 10 | 23 | 12 | 1 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 19 | 12 | 31 | 4 | 14 |
| 2018 | 4 | 7 | 21 | 8 | 9 | 37 | 9 | 5 | 19 | 25 | 5 | 14 |
| 2017 | 4 | 34 | 22 | 12 | 17 | 20 | 4 | 19 | 23 | 44 | 23 | 16 |
| 2016 | 13 | 49 | 39 | 57 | 60 | 87 | 10 | 32 | 24 | 12 | 9 | 23 |
| 2015 | 51 | 97 | 32 | 49 | 41 | 54 | 20 | 28 | 0 | 14 | 31 | 16 |
| 2014 | 9 | 75 | 68 | 33 | 28 | 33 | 52 | 82 | 51 | 32 | 38 | 79 |
| 2013 | 463 | 251 | 98 | 87 | 81 | 192 | 88 | 98 | 86 | 38 | 54 | 27 |
| 2012 | 92 | 121 | 180 | 199 | 125 | 88 | 71 | 155 | 118 | 166 | 125 | 144 |
| 2011 | 112 | 78 | 71 | 73 | 134 | 225 | 252 | 152 | 62 | 183 | 165 | 63 |
| 2010 | 142 | 117 | 153 | 94 | 69 | 49 | 69 | 183 | 82 | 71 | 68 | 75 |
| 2009 | 67 | 45 | 42 | 97 | 90 | 149 | 110 | 70 | 63 | 42 | 35 | 39 |
| 2008 | 200 | 120 | 175 | 120 | 70 | 109 | 87 | 115 | 71 | 45 | 58 | 38 |
| 2007 | 165 | 447 | 132 | 99 | 95 | 57 | 140 | 118 | 74 | 88 | 125 | 99 |
| FAQ | Contact | Services | Terms | Privacy | Credits |
[Page generated in 0.0805 seconds under 1.27% server load]
© 2012-2025 TVRDb.com. All rights reserved.