Ah, a person advocating a position I agree with, but using terrible+inconsistent arguments. :(
For instance: it was always perfectly clear that the BBC's "outrageous statement" was the result of contacting someone within the BBC who didn't know what they were talking about. There was never the slightest indication that it was an official position. Quoting it does nothing to further the actual, real point that can be made about the problems a "little guy" faces when attempting to enforce their copyright.
Anyone in a position of responding directly to the public should either know enough to give a reasonable answer or know enough to consult an expert before answering.
The thing is, actions speak louder than words. If the BBC is repeatedly doing things that are clearly against the law -- and in this respect, the evidence shows that they are -- then it is not the ignorant front-line responder who is irrelevant, but the senior spokesman who claims they have a different policy when they aren't actually implementing it.
If you're implying that the social media editor was lying, I'd be curious to hear why you think this is so clear. I can easily believe that the BBC staff would like to do a lot of things that don't fit into their deadlines.
OK, that's it. There's a sporadic JavaScript alert on that page that asks for confirmation before closing the page, there's a sporadic refresh on load to some advertiser's page (which has a self-starting video ad on it), and now excessive CPU?
They are making a strong case for a spot on my "automatically flag on sight" list.
For instance: it was always perfectly clear that the BBC's "outrageous statement" was the result of contacting someone within the BBC who didn't know what they were talking about. There was never the slightest indication that it was an official position. Quoting it does nothing to further the actual, real point that can be made about the problems a "little guy" faces when attempting to enforce their copyright.