121–130 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are we sure the copyright belongs to BBC and not the royal family?
Excuse my ignorance, but why exactly would the copyright belong to the royal family?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You claimed “In the United States you can’t be arrested and charged with theft without the owner claiming you actually stole something.” Then you shifted the goalposts to “charges and convictions”.
Yes I did. Which I clarified because a pedantic ball flew over the first goal post.
The real question is do you have an example of a judge ruling that someone can't be charged and convicted on theft without a prior claim of deprivation to a good and service from an owner? Because I'm pretty sure you are wrong.
If you were correct about your belief, I'm sure you can find an example of someone charged with murder and theft, and the theft charges being thrown out because the victim is unavailable to say something was stolen.
I guess in your imagination I can steal money from the wallet of a person in a coma in front of a cop, and get off scot free, since the victim can't testify against me?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Tell that to the all the young people at Mrs. Roper Romp Drag Queen Parties. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/arts/television/mrs-roper...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legal or not, the BBC obviously put a value of zero on these things when they threw them away. So who has lost, what value needs to be recovered? There's no reasonable reason for anyone to pursue legal action, it would just be vexatious and / or a waste of tax payer money.
You don’t need a loss to occur for there to be a crime “the trump defense” If I break into your house, eat your food, but leave money on the counter for the same value, you didn’t make a loss, but I’m sure you would want me to be arrested
If I took a piece of potato peel out of your bin that was on the pavement, that might technically be a crime (I don't know). But are you going to pursue a civil suit? What compensation are you going to get?
Are the police or CPS going to prosecute? Is it in the national interest? Or are they wasting resources for no reason.
The BBC are in no way being harmed by someone who has permission to be on the premises taking something that the BBC literally believes to be rubbish.
There's a legal concept of irrationality. This would seem to be an example of that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most countries have statues of limitations for criminal offenses. It makes sense - imagine trying to defend yourself against an case where the police has been sitting on evidence for 50 years, and anyone you could call in your defense is long-dead.
One argument for a statute of limitations is fading human memory, but I don't see how that's the case here, from the article: > "Discarded TV film was secretly salvaged from bins and skips by staff and contractors who worked at the BBC between 1967 and 1978, when the corporation had a policy of throwing out old reels. [...] “The collectors involved are ex-employees and so are terrified. The rule was that you didn’t t…
On the other hand an employee probably wouldn’t get the copyright etc, it’s still their intellectual property, it’s just a rare collectible item that got thrown away and is now properly recognized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Legal or not, the BBC obviously put a value of zero on these things when they threw them away. So who has lost, what value needs to be recovered? There's no reasonable reason for anyone to pursue legal action, it would just be vexatious and / or a waste of tax payer money.
You don’t need a loss to occur for there to be a crime “the trump defense” If I break into your house, eat your food, but leave money on the counter for the same value, you didn’t make a loss, but I’m sure you would want me to be arrested
As others have said this article is poorly written with the person interviewed saying he was misquoted so nothing in it can be taken as true. However, there have been very strong rumors for years that 2-3 episodes known to be in the hands of collectors (I believe it was said in a recorded interview with the Radio Free Skaro podcast by someone involved in Classic Who bluray releases) While some people may be worried a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell that to the all the young people at Mrs. Roper Romp Drag Queen Parties. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/arts/television/mrs-roper...
How about a link people can actually read? https://archive.li/69gz9
It says a lot about the state of the BBC that they produce so little sci-fi that this is actually considered news. Look at Netflix, for whom sci-fi/fantasy is the most popular genre of show and as a consequence they invest heavily into it. The BBC seems to be staffed by an incredibly narrow and stifling cultural homogeneity in which period dramas that appeal to middle aged women are good, but sci-fi shows that appeal…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One argument for a statute of limitations is fading human memory, but I don't see how that's the case here, from the article: > "Discarded TV film was secretly salvaged from bins and skips by staff and contractors who worked at the BBC between 1967 and 1978, when the corporation had a policy of throwing out old reels. [...] “The collectors involved are ex-employees and so are terrified. The rule was that you didn’t t…
Legal or not, the BBC obviously put a value of zero on these things when they threw them away. So who has lost, what value needs to be recovered? There's no reasonable reason for anyone to pursue legal action, it would just be vexatious and / or a waste of tax payer money.
Yes, I agree with you, but clearly this is illegal in the UK. I'm only narrowly commenting on how in this case the passage of time doesn't seem to have impacted anyone's ability to discern the facts of the case.