Nick, has been drinking the BBC kool aid, and thinks we have a weak case.
Well I have submitted a complaint to the BBC suggesting the following
five actual or stated intention of the BBC, in public documents, to
prima facie case of breaking the law.
1. State Aid.
2. Public Service Obligations
3. Extra Judicial enforcement by a public body
4. "Oligopolistic Dominance", and "Anticompetitive Parallel Behaviour"
5 "Vertical Discrimination"
I could do better with more time.
Nick how do you like our case now ?
Extract:
1. Summary.
The BBC's case is that it is in the public interest to submit to and
engage in "anticompetitive parallel behaviour" in breach of it's own
legal obligations and competition law (which is not justified by copyright).
This ignores the violation of several principles enshrined in law: legal
obligations and competition law. And exceptions to copyright under the law.
But most worrying of all, intellectual property is continuing to be used
to justify the eroding and rights and violating principles that appear
in the European Convention on Human Rights[13] Universal Declaration of
Human Rights[12] or a written constitution (like the US
constitution[11]): freedom of speech and expression, intrusions into the
publics autonomy, privacy, property and extra-judicial enforcement of
arbitrary restrictions.
By contrast:
Breech of copyright is a Tort (civil wrong), only in exceptional cases a
criminal offence (that is changing as more draconian laws are passed), a
loss has to be established, for which damages may be awarded, by the courts.
The BBC is clearly taking disproportionate action, by creating the
infrastructure for control of the public by special interests and
violating the law, in exchange for illusionary short term gains.
-
Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please
visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html.
Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
