this is awesome. we should all help him out. where do we send the cash?

Hey, he chose ME!

Love that show, man.

You might want to spell Fawlty right if you love the show so much :)

You're high on idol, dude. Careful, or you'll get smote.

Hmm. He's on Seesmic seesmic.com/johncleese

Yeah, feh. We like Vimeo more than Facebook.

Fair enough, but then why provide a Facebook option in the share link?

That's Vimeo, not us..

Everybody is welcome to their opinion and taste. You don't have to watch!

Facebook's TOS is too greedy. Even the old less greedy one, which they have since rolled back to after a wave of protest.

Fair enough ... I agree about their TOS. But Cleese already made the content public so who cares in this case? (PS - I made my own vimeo cut from his podcast, so it makes it to fb anyway.)

If you did, you're in breach of his rights and you owe us £50,000.00 - that's pounds, not dollars.

Check's in the mail. The good news is I only have two fb friends and neither one of them viewed the clip.

Still, joking aside, I think you confuse "public" with "yours to do what you want with". John's podcasts say "© all rights reserved" which actually means what it says. TBH, John being who he is, we mostly get a lot of respect and very little in the way of blatant nicking. This is the first time I've ever seen it on Vimeo...

You know, Mr. Whitbread, I'm really unsure if you're joking or serious. I thought the ten second clip of John Cleese calling twitterers "twats" was pretty hilarious. And, frankly, it would surprise me if someone who would broadcast such a thing -- with the intent of millions of people in the general public seeing it -- would object to extending the viewing audience into a private circle of Facebook friends. One would think he would appreciate that more people could see his clever quip. But if you want to get all obtuse about it and claim that it actually is Mr. Cleese's desire to restrict who views it, then I will happily flush the clip down the toilet and avoid his broadcasts, and yours, in the future.

I stopped following Cleese's tweets, too. Some unauthorized facebook non-twat might might look over my shoulder and read something they weren't supposed to see.

Thanks.

I'm reminded of the record company executive who laments it when people stop buying their music. The old school executive thinks he's punishing the "internet" when he tries to force his customers into his preferred distribution channel, the one where he takes a few dollars worth of music, spends five dollars on distribution and then tries to sell it for $18. All that was accomplished was that he stifled distribution, killed sales, and created ill-will with the consumer. This is somewhat the same in that facebook is indifferent to the imposed restrictions. It's the people who are unable to see Mr. Cleese's work who will miss out. Pretty ironic that.

Then again, as creatives, we are all entitled to decide which channels / platforms / shops will carry what we make. There is a huge difference between an artist doing it for themselves (as John's doing) and a media corporation imposing unreasonable restrictions on their consumers to maximise profits.

As for restrictions, they don't really exist. It's easy enough to stick a link to Vimeo into your Facebook page, and type, "Check this out" isn't it?

There's a difference in US / UK pronunciation which makes the joke more subtle than you realise.

Thanks I never knew the US pronounce twat twot, unless twot is a word in its own right, which is news to me.

Goes against one idea of it, sure.