“In contributing to BBC News you agree to grant us a royalty-free, non-exclusive licence to publish and otherwise use the material in any way that we want, and in any media worldwide. bbc”
Well, it isn't 'stealing', because they told you that they are doing it before they do it. And it is your choice as well right.
After all, you are a ‘nobody’ because a ‘somebody’ is determined by the prominence corporations give to that person if they want to - and not necessarily because they are the best. And through those they turn into ‘celebs’, they make money off you, and for the rest who don’t make it, they tell you to send in your photos, comments, ideas, music, and just about anything that can get them more money and prominence, whilst you just walk away with your name under your Intellectual Property and tell everyone about your 5 minutes of fame.
Turning one person into a celeb by through exposure is a small payoff for the exploitation of the rest. The same thing happens with lotteries.The same thing goes on with their comments system. You stick in your name, location, and that’s it. What’s in a name anyway? There are numerous out there with the same name. Means nothing. In an age where people are beginning to scrape a corner for themselves via a host of social networks, blogs, websites, etc, to insist that you put no more than your name to your comment or any other stuff that you might foolishly send in to the BBC, is nothing short of stealing your Intellectual Property for their own benefit. You exist as nothing but their suppliers. Oh yes, some might 'make it' after such exposure. But for every one person who does, there are numerous the BBC, and others have used, but whom won't 'make it'. Turning one person into a celeb by through exposure is a small payoff for the exploitation of the rest. The same thing happens with lotteries.
Everyone knows where the BBC is on the net. But nobody’s going to know where your net-based hovel is. That way, when it comes to quality, people are only going to remember the BBC and view them as those whom know what 'quality' is. And that is going to make them the determiners of quality, and the gatekeepers of information. People are soon going to say, 'if the information/picture/idea/comment/analysis/etc isn't from celebs, corporations, etc, it isn't quality. Oh, wait a minute, it's been happening for a long while now.
Well, that is how they will do their part in channelling popular development and inclination. Not you, whatever your name is.
Informing you of what you’re giving up makes no difference. Knowledge of a crime doesn’t turn it into a non-crime mate.
It’s the same old strategy. Deprive you of resources. Then give you the ‘choice’ to either starve to death or work for their profit, or deprive you off prominence, then give you the ‘choice’ of either giving them your work, or languishing in oblivion.
The freedom of choice is negated by the inequitable distribution of advantage. Think about that.