Um, I'd be very wary of looking for *any* sort of meaning in newsbeat. It's clearly written and presented by gibbons.

Sorry, pedant's corner:

> t's certainly true that it constitutes theft in most cases

No no no no no no no. Infringement, not theft.

Who said I was looking for meaning? I was just criticising their fuckwittery.


> Infringement, not theft.

Ach, legalese subsets.

Seeing as its our BBC (thats what they claim) then the downloaded material is ours anyway.

What the problem then? At worst its akin to the kids finding and opening their presents early.

Son: Dad, what's Father Christmas going to get me?

BBC Dad: Your favourite, Das Kapital! (oh and here's the bill).

It's not everyone, thinks the BBC hands out presents.

A career in stand-up clearly beckons.

Sorry to by a party pooper, I hate the BBC for its sucking up to Islam and the way it treats the first world. But the reason is that they sell the programme to other national broadcasters, so it does matter. So they are right to get irritated.

No, it doesn't matter, because (a) other national broadcasters aren't going to use the downloaded version, (b) while the BBC may like selling stuff to other countries, it's not part of their job, and they do keep going on at us about how they don't make programs for filthy profit, so any hit taken to those international revenues should be viewed as the other countries' loss, not the BBC's, and (c) didn't they announce recently that all their satellite content was to be freely available outside the UK? Or did I dream that last one?

and not to mention d) if they do receive any revenue, aren't we, the telly-tax payers, due a dividend?

Speaking in a Devil's Advocate role, is it not the case that the BBC generates revenue not only form selling TV shows abroad, as has been mentioned already, but also from selling DVDs, video, CD and audio cassettes of its productions? And is it not possible its income from these sources could be harmed by the availability of downloads? This in turn would mean either less money for programme making or an increase in licence fees...

Yes, that's right, Tom. However, as I've mentioned before, the BBC shouldn't be making revenue from selling recordings of their programs — at least, not from selling them to license-holders.

Even if you disagree with that, even if you think the BBC should be allowed to charge market prices for its DVDs, it's still not true to say that downloading the show equals theft. What you're saying is that the BBC's revenue could be harmed if they only charge viewers once per show, instead of twice. True, but that doesn't make those viewers thieves. They're still viewing something that they either have legally paid for or are exempt from paying for.

You know this raises some fascinating ideas... Like going into the BBC shop & asking for a discount on a boxed set of Doctor Who DVDs while waving my TV licence around.
Technically, I should be entitled to only pay for the materials within that DVD, seeing as how I've already paid for the viewing rights.
Marvellous.

Just how legal is this shady operation of the Beeb's? I mean, if I bought a book from Waterstone's, they're hardly going to come round to my house every time I read it again, and charge me for it.

At least, not yet.