ed <ed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jan 2007 12:59:13 +0000
> notinuse2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > ed <ed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Sun, 31 Dec 2006 13:14:17 -0800
> > > Tim Smith <reply_in_group@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > > In article <20061231105406.38f99058@ed-desktop>, ed
> > > > <ed@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > roy's site is non-commercial, therefore not in breach of any
> > > > > copyright.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure what country you are from, but it doesn't matter, as
> > > > your statement there is wrong in almost all of them (all of
> > > > Europe, all of North America, and all but perhaps one or two in
> > > > the rest of the world).
> > >
> > > the bbc don't class what roy is doing as a breach of their terms and
> > > conditions. roy pays a tv/radio license as he is in part of the uk,
> > > bbc can't really complain with what he is doing. anyone can tape a
> > > video from the bbc perfectly legally here in the uk, they can even
> > > put it on you tube, and it's still legal.
> >
> > Er, no. You can't tape Dr Who and put it on You Tube and expect there
> > to be no repercussions. Perhaps you could put up a snippet under
> > "fair use" provisions, but you would need context.
> >
> > You certainly don't buy copyright when you pay your TV licence.
>
> i understood it to be legal for eduction purposes
Does You Tube count as "educational purposes"?
--
Immunity is better than innoculation.
Peter
|
|
