[Ettiominiw]

Unfortunately for the US reader the video is unobtainum, as is apparently the case of all BBC Sport videos.

For a sport that has yet to gather a sufficient audience in the US I find this counterproductive. Perhaps in distribution rights legalese it makes sense, but from the consumer's point of view less availability means less exposure, which leads to less interest and lowered commercial viability.

Formula One Management has a youtube patrol which cherry picks material deemed objectionable to the sanctioning body. Examples; 1998: Michael Schumacher stomping towards David Coultard's pit after a collusion that occurred during a torrential downpour at Spa. No blows were exchanged, just some words. Out of the three videos posted from that race the start (complete with multi-car pileup) and Damon Hill taking the win for Eddie Jordan was not targeted as copyright violation. Also, a portion of the 2000 Speedvision special "United States Grand Prix, A Heritage Reborn", which outlined the history of the sport in the US, was also targeted because someone being interviewed forwarded the notion Bernie Ecclestone made a mistake (gasp) by pricing Long Beach off the schedule. So, the message I get is don't post anything that might color Michael Schumacher or Bernie Ecclestone in a bad light, irregardless of absence of hype or slanted editorializing.

I'll repeat the nod towards copyright legal doctrine, but when this is examined not with a legal magnifying glass but from the full view perspective it doesn't make commercial sense, nevermind the public's right to know position which I happen to favor. If no one is airing historical F1 reviews on television denying the US racing fan access to in on the internet MAKE NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.

Sorry about going a bit o/t there but I had to vent. Hopefully the powers that be will reconsider their position on the matter and do what's best for the sport AND the fan. The new US F1 team might agree that far as spreading the F1 word is concerned the more, the better.