If you have downloaded the .flv file you might not have added .flv to the end of the file name by renaming it.

I will have another go!

Thank you for replying

Thankyou very much!!

Absolutely correct. Firstly, a thank you to Maltipom, SCDancing34 and katiep for their efforts, which I'm sure many of us have appreciated. However, in addition to the copyright issue, the reailty is that BBC has no choice but to take the action that it just has as they absolutely have to be mindful of its charter and its licence fee agreement. That means that digital broadcasts of its shows have to be restricted to the UK and Northern Ireland only, which is essentially what they do with their own You Tube site and with iPlayer. If they don't take action, then all BBC licence fee payers are being treated unfairly and doubtless illegally under EU and UK law - and in the worst case, that could mean legal action resulting in the licence fee being abolished; while commercial competitors of BBC Worldwide can claim that the BBC is effectively distorting competition by allowing illegal cross-promotion of its programmes.

Thanks for the reply, will see about downloading the ones I would like to keep.

I don't doubt any of the reasons you cite as the rationale behind the BBC's move - I'm sure you are right.

However ...

There are ways of doing things like this that don't get people's backs up, and swooping in over Xmas and sneakily removing videos many of us have loved watching and re-watching with no annoucement or apology is just plain stupid. A press release could have been issued - or, at very least, a statement made on the official website.

But, as we all know from this last series of Strictly, the BBC's management skills leave rather a lot to be desired. To say the least. So, instead, we have a situation where many people are left fuming. The BBC does not seem to realise that the efforts of Maltipom, SCDancing34 and katiep have helped contribute to the popularity of their show. They should be thanking them, not going all Gestapo. The way this has been carried out has achieved little but create resentment towards the BBC (again!).

Fine if they really had to do it, but does the extremely loyal core audience matter so little to them?

well said!!

Having spent most of my career working for large organisations, I'd suspect that the timing had far more to do with the Christmas and New Year period being a useful quiet period to carry out a piece of dull, labour intensive, but necessary administration on the part of both YouTube and the BBC. Do you really think they want to go to the trouble and expense of trawling through millions of You Tube (and other) accounts looking for illegal video clips? Of course they don't. They do it because they have to.

Secondly, even if they had wanted to, the BBC couldn't contact Maltipom et al, only YouTube can. All the BBC can do is to provide YouTube with details of items that are in breach of their copyright. If the account holders were unhappy with YouTube's methods of deleting their files, then their beef is with YouTube, not the BBC. However, if you read YouTube's terms and conditions, YouTube behaved well within what is set out. (And if you don't want to accept YouTube's Ts and Cs, you don't have to sign up. Anyone with a spare PC to act as a web server and a bit of technical knowledge can set up an identical site.) Finally, and I know this sounds harsh, but efforts and the motives are utterly irrelevant if what you are doing breaches copyright, i.e., is illegal.

At last, what appears to be a very sensible and reasoned post, devoid of any sentimentality.

Sorry, but the timing is incredibly stupid - just after a series of Strictly finished. I too have worked for large organisations - the BBC being one of them - and its ability to misjudge and mistime decisions is legendary. (Just look at what it's done over the last year). I don't think it is anything to do with Christmas. I'm sure it's a time-consuming job, but so is most of the other admin both the BBC and Youtube have to carry out on a regular basis. This isn't all that different.

As far as your second point goes, I never suggested individual account holders be contacted: I suggested the BBC issued a press release and/or posted something on the Strictly website informing us, the viewers, what they were doing and why.

And as for your comments about what Maltipom et al's activities being illegal, then answer me this: how come Youtube is full of clips from other BBC shows that aren't subject to this kind of policing?

And, mossy2103, sorry if you feel I, and others, are getting setimental - but we happen to feel passionately about having something we enjoyed taken away from us! If it had to be done, OK - but there are ways of letting people down gently ...

Yes, I understand that, and sympathise with those who have put in the effort over the years, but in my eyes it's sentimentality as opposed to cold practicality. Perhaps sentimentality was the wrong word ......

As for timing - again I see it as being practical. Better to do that sort of housekeeping at this time rather than any other.

No offence meant.

The BBC have no responsibility to inform us that they are removing the stolen copyright contents from thieves.

No disrespect meant to the uploaders, but as uploaders of content that's essentially what we are. We steal things and upload them to illegally distribute to others. It is their RIGHT to take it down. It's annoying and it makes you want to pull your hair out and throw things at walls and crush glasses under your fingertips after you're stupid enough to get your third account deleted, but it's their right.