Could you explain how you find it patronising - is it that I'm pointing out they're breaking the law if they use this specific font [file] without a license but you think this is obvious, or that I'm assuming they know they're committing tortfeasance when you feel it's not obvious.
There are of course other possibilities, hence why I posed the question, they might be outside the Berne Convention/TRIPS countries and not be bound by copyright law, for example.
It's this particular pattern of saying "I assume you realize that [thing I actually assume you don't realize], right?"
Well, no. Obviously they don't realize that, or else they disagree on some more fundamental point, or they wouldn't have said whatever they said in the first place— which I assume you actually do realize.
So it's a very disingenuous way of communicating. All it really says is "I think I know more about this than you, but I decided not to be nice about informing you," which isn't a very productive way to start a conversation.
They mention take down notices which means they are aware of online copyright issues. I was attempting both to confirm that they felt this was tortuously infringing activity and giving the opportunity to respond with their moral justification.
>Well, no. Obviously they don't realize that
To recapitulate: if they mentioned "take down notices" then they appear to be living in the USA, aware of copyright in online material and cognisant of the Digitial Millenium Copyright Act (just an informed guess) as a minimum; my point was to confirm this and, like I said, dig for a response (without leading them on as to what sort of response to make - moral, legal, technical, political, ...).
The question was also serving as a flag for the issue for other readers.
So, whilst I'm prepared to entertain an argument that I was being disingenuous I'm afraid your premises are false and thus the reasoned conclusions equally unsound.
If you're looking to establish a relevant argument to the content of the thread then perhaps civil disobedience WRT copyright would be the way to go; there are strong arguments that the BBC should back a change in UK law as proposed elsewhere to ensure release of such works in to the public domain.
Regardless of your intentions, you should be aware in the future that that speech pattern will come off as insufferably condescending to a number of people, including myself.
If your aim is indeed to start a productive dialogue, I'd consider something more like, "That's a noble thought, but aren't you worried about the copyright implications?"
There are of course other possibilities, hence why I posed the question, they might be outside the Berne Convention/TRIPS countries and not be bound by copyright law, for example.