11–20 of 56 posts
Quick answer: They sell them at around 10% value on the black market, or use them as bargaining chips if they're arrested for other crimes. Clickbait titles leading to long fluffy non-answer pieces can do one.
What's the point of posting a link to an article that a significant fraction of the public will not be able to read? Wouldn't it be better to create a précis and post that instead?
Or you could spend the money to read it. I'm starting to feel like the people who complain about the poor quality of media and aggressive advertising are part of the problem by refusing to pay for content when it is offered to them in an up-front way. As if the entire world is entitled to open access to journalism. Or that paying for news hasn't been how publishers operated for hundreds of years.
What's the point of posting a link to an article that a significant fraction of the public will not be able to read? Wouldn't it be better to create a précis and post that instead?
Or you could spend the money to read it. I'm starting to feel like the people who complain about the poor quality of media and aggressive advertising are part of the problem by refusing to pay for content when it is offered to them in an up-front way. As if the entire world is entitled to open access to journalism. Or that paying for news hasn't been how publishers operated for hundreds of years.
Then a few paragraphs later talks about how he also committed his crime with a sledgehammer and no forethought:
> “I just did it because I saw the opportunity,” Durham said. He noticed a window at the museum that he thought would be easy to smash. “I didn’t have a buyer before I did it,” he said. “I just thought I can either sell them, or if I have a problem I can negotiate with the paintings.”
See other comments in this thread for a single-sentence distillation of the only really useful information from the article.
A lot of big ticket stolen art is used as collateral for other illegal transactions. Everyone knows it's worthless because you can't unload it. But it shows you are a really good criminal.
What's the point of posting a link to an article that a significant fraction of the public will not be able to read? Wouldn't it be better to create a précis and post that instead?
Or you could spend the money to read it. I'm starting to feel like the people who complain about the poor quality of media and aggressive advertising are part of the problem by refusing to pay for content when it is offered to them in an up-front way. As if the entire world is entitled to open access to journalism. Or that paying for news hasn't been how publishers operated for hundreds of years.
Quick answer: They sell them at around 10% value on the black market, or use them as bargaining chips if they're arrested for other crimes. Clickbait titles leading to long fluffy non-answer pieces can do one.
edit: I think I'd be more inclined to click this title than the original.