Let’s talk about BBC

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Fake news. It's only $5bn.

Apparently he’s filed a second lawsuit, claiming breach of trade practice laws, also for $5bn.
No idea how a private individual can seek to benefit in this way.

I see they are claiming the interview was available in Florida, through using a VPN.
While not illegal in itself, it is a breach of the BBC’s terms of service.
Also, the iPlayer will usually pick up on anyone accessing using a VPN.
 
OP
OP
Beebo

Beebo

Guru
If the BBC pays a single cent I will be annoyed.
They shouldn’t even pay legal costs. The Florida court can’t enforce a fine anyway.
 
If the BBC pays a single cent I will be annoyed.
They shouldn’t even pay legal costs. The Florida court can’t enforce a fine anyway.

I look on this as a direct attack on the UK, even if Starmer isn't man enough to say so. If successful then I will have to take reciprocal action.
Yes it will mean losing some services (and will go unnoticed) but that will open my life up to more activities, and I'll feel better.
 

AndyRM

Elder Goth
Apparently he’s filed a second lawsuit, claiming breach of trade practice laws, also for $5bn.
No idea how a private individual can seek to benefit in this way.

I see they are claiming the interview was available in Florida, through using a VPN.
While not illegal in itself, it is a breach of the BBC’s terms of service.
Also, the iPlayer will usually pick up on anyone accessing using a VPN.

Hadn't realised that.

To be honest the whole thing is just him plucking numbers and pish out the air, Dr Evil style.

Totally with @Beebo. If the Beeb give him a penny it'll be an embarrassment.
 

CXRAndy

Shaman
Fake news. It's only $5bn.
1000028925.jpg

⏫️⏫️⏫️
 
If, by some miracle, Trump managed to win a few quid in settlement, the BBC should then appeal in a British court.
The most likely outcome is that the orange bandit will be 6 feet under before any resolution is reached.
 

midlandsgrimpeur

Well-Known Member
The key issue seems to be jurisdiction. Part of the case cited the BBC weather page, so he's got his top people on this.

Michael Fish? John Kettley?
 

TailWindHome

New Member
The key issue seems to be jurisdiction. Part of the case cited the BBC weather page, so he's got his top people on this.
On jurisdiction.
1000021384.jpg



Obvs I'm not a lawyer but I'd imagine they'd have to prove that the program was viewed in Florida, by a substantial number of people, rather than just that people *could* in theory have watched

Adams won his claim

And iplayer is now geoblocked in Ireland.
 

midlandsgrimpeur

Well-Known Member
On jurisdiction.
View attachment 11636


Obvs I'm not a lawyer but I'd imagine they'd have to prove that the program was viewed in Florida, by a substantial number of people, rather than just that people *could* in theory have watched

Adams won his claim

And iplayer is now geoblocked in Ireland.

From my experience of Florida everyone is either at Disney, playing golf or eating a buffet dinner at 4pm, no way any of them had time to watch the BBC!
 
I would have thought the issue would come down to cause. If someone broke the law to view the programme - which would be the case if a Florida resident used a VPN to pretend to be a UK resident - I'm struggling to see how the BBC could be held liable for a third party's illegal behaviour.

As I understand it the North erican rights were held by a Canadian broadcaster and it isn't clear that they were ever actually exercised in relation to the Panorama programme. Accordingly, if anyone else has watched it, there is a copyright breach.
 
Top Bottom