Re: [backstage] Green Ink.
Gordon Joly wrote: On 17/06/2010 22:19, David Tomlinson wrote: 1. As a recipient of public money, the BBC can not discriminate against suppliers (requiring content control). 2. The BBC is subject to Public Service Obligations, and therefore must reach as wider range of the public as possible (not encrypting the EPG). 4. The BBC cannot enter into anti-competitive practices with other Broadcasters (to require Content Control). 5. The BBC cannot enter into anti-competitive practices with content distributors (Film Companies). 3. As a public body, the BBC cannot impose content management without a legal tribunal. Point 6? Point 6. I don't think I have been taking this issue seriously enough ... 6. Competition law applies equally to the Film Distributors. Just the two largest can exceed engaging in Anticompetitive Parallel Behaviour have 40% market share, 30% is required for a scale monopoly (UK law) or Oligopolistic Dominance (EU Law), and the figures were for world wide box office, not just the UK. I am using Box Office as a proxy for market power/share. A more formal analysis may be needed as the basis for legal action. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
RE: [backstage] Green Ink.
I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 17 June 2010 17:10 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Green Ink. 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Green Ink.
Nick Reynolds-FMT wrote: I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer I am not a lawyer either, we shouldn't have to say it but: (from memory) 1. As a recipient of public money, the BBC can not discriminate against suppliers (requiring content control). 2. The BBC is subject to Public Service Obligations, and therefore must reach as wider range of the public as possible (not encrypting the EPG). 4. The BBC cannot enter into anti-competitive practices with other Broadcasters (to require Content Control). 5. The BBC cannot enter into anti-competitive practices with content distributors (Film Companies). 3. As a public body, the BBC cannot impose content management without a legal tribunal. An argument can be made that the BBC is in breach of the (specific) laws, in any of the event of any of the above, and in all but one case there is no public value test (strict liability) unlike the justifications given by Ofcom. The BBC Management appears to intend to engage in all of the above, from the Ofcom statement. http://www.ofcom.org.uk/consult/condocs/content_mngt/statement/statement.pdf I will have to wait for the BBC to respond, in order to clarify the issues or appeal to the trust. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Green Ink.
I'm not a lawyer either, but I can at least translate what David's saying; ME ME ME ME ME!!! I WANT IT ALL! FOR NOTHING!!! ME ME! GIVE IT TO ME! I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, EVER!!! ME ME ME!!! IT'S MY RIGHT TO HAVE EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING FOR EVER AND EVER, AND I'LL CRY IF I CAN'T!! That's pretty much the gist of it. Cheers, Rich. On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 5:25 PM, Nick Reynolds-FMT nick.reyno...@bbc.co.uk wrote: I'm not a lawyer so I can't answer -Original Message- From: owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk [mailto:owner-backst...@lists.bbc.co.uk] On Behalf Of David Tomlinson Sent: 17 June 2010 17:10 To: backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk Subject: [backstage] Green Ink. 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/ - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
Re: [backstage] Green Ink.
Richard Lockwood wrote: I'm not a lawyer either, but I can at least translate what David's saying; ME ME ME ME ME!!! I WANT IT ALL! FOR NOTHING!!! ME ME! GIVE IT TO ME! I DON'T WANT TO PAY FOR ANYTHING, EVER!!! ME ME ME!!! IT'S MY RIGHT TO HAVE EVERYTHING FOR NOTHING FOR EVER AND EVER, AND I'LL CRY IF I CAN'T!! That's pretty much the gist of it. It's really not. There is a truly massive stretch of clear blue water between 'information should be free - it can't be ownes, therefore I don't need to pay'. And 'Content providers should not be able to dictate - sometimes in violation of local laws on fair use - the way in which that content is legitimately used by paying users'. - 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/backstage@lists.bbc.co.uk/
