Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 158 posts

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#141

Post by fingerlocks »

staticman2 wrote: post #122
fingerlocks wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes I did. Which I clarified because a pedantic ball flew over the first goal post.

You asked "Do you have any examples of charges and convictions on theft without a prior claim of deprivation to a good or service from an owner?" 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 sur…

No, because you stole in front of a cop. If you stole from a comatose person in the witness of non-cop, and that non-cop has authority of agency over the comatose, they can can press charges and you can be arrested.

Does that help?

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#142

Post by fingerlocks »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #63
fingerlocks wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don’t? In the United States you can’t be arrested and charged with theft without the owner claiming you actually stole something. Is that not the case in the UK? Can you be charged because the DA read about a hypothetical crime in the bews?

In the United States you can’t be arrested and charged with theft without the owner claiming you actually stole something. Not sure it was that simple in, for example, the case where Aaron Swartz 'stole' articles from JSTOR. JSTOR declined to press charges, but the prosecutor went berserk with self-righteous bloodlust, and well, we all know how that turned out.

He was not charged with theft.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#143

Post by worksonmine »

benj111 wrote: post #134
worksonmine wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So who has lost, what value needs to be recovered? Does there have to be loss? If you throw away a phone containing your nudes and I recover it, can I leak them? By your logic yes because nothing was lost, you didn't want them. Sometimes it's not as simple as you wanting to keep something or not, you should also have the right to decide that something you created should not exist.

If you purposefully threw away a phone that you knew had nudes on, I don't think you can complain that someone found them no. I suppose the ultimate answer is not to leave pictures of your self nude if you don't want people finding them. I'm guessing most people wouldn't want just one random person having access to their nude photos. I'm not sure how this example changes if you replace throwing away with selling on e…

Add complexity, I wasn't the one who threw it. Is it still yours now? Did you find a perfect loophole for privacy? "I found it on the web, they obviously didn't want it, it's mine and I'm putting it on my streaming service".

> I'm not sure how this example changes if you replace throwing away with selling on eBay, whereas if the BBC had sold the tapes on eBay, presumably we wouldn't be having this conversation

What? How is that even remotely comparable? Had they sold it obviously it changes everything. Maybe even with clauses on how it's allowed to be shared and so on.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#144

Post by benj111 »

worksonmine wrote: post #143
benj111 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you purposefully threw away a phone that you knew had nudes on, I don't think you can complain that someone found them no. I suppose the ultimate answer is not to leave pictures of your self nude if you don't want people finding them. I'm guessing most people wouldn't want just one random person having access to their nude photos. I'm not sure how this example changes if you replace throwing away with selling on e…

Add complexity, I wasn't the one who threw it. Is it still yours now? Did you find a perfect loophole for privacy? "I found it on the web, they obviously didn't want it, it's mine and I'm putting it on my streaming service". > I'm not sure how this example changes if you replace throwing away with selling on eBay, whereas if the BBC had sold the tapes on eBay, presumably we wouldn't be having this conversation What?…

>Add complexity...

You aren't adding complexity, you're changing the situation entirely.

The BBC threw things away. they meant to throw things away, because they didn't value them. If you throw my phone away, that doesn't mean I don't value it. If you throw a phone with nudes on, that you don't want people to see, then you obviously value your privacy and shouldn't have thrown your phone away with nudes on.

At some point you have to take responsibility for your own actions.

>What? How is that even remotely comparable? Had they sold it obviously it changes everything. Maybe even with clauses on how it's allowed to be shared and so on

My point is, if you sold a phone with nudes on you probably wouldn't want people looking at them.

So the 'morality' of that is independent of how the phone was gained.

On the other hand, if the BBC sold the tapes, there wouldn't be an issue.

So the comparison is flawed. One is an issue of how the item was obtained, one is an issue of what was on the item.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#145

Post by worksonmine »

benj111 wrote: post #144
worksonmine wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Add complexity, I wasn't the one who threw it. Is it still yours now? Did you find a perfect loophole for privacy? "I found it on the web, they obviously didn't want it, it's mine and I'm putting it on my streaming service". > I'm not sure how this example changes if you replace throwing away with selling on eBay, whereas if the BBC had sold the tapes on eBay, presumably we wouldn't be having this conversation What?…

>Add complexity... You aren't adding complexity, you're changing the situation entirely. The BBC threw things away. they meant to throw things away, because they didn't value them. If you throw my phone away, that doesn't mean I don't value it. If you throw a phone with nudes on, that you don't want people to see, then you obviously value your privacy and shouldn't have thrown your phone away with nudes on. At some p…

> You aren't adding complexity, you're changing the situation entirely

I'm not changing anything from the perspective of the dumpster diver, which is my point. The rest of the discussion is just you grasping at straws to make a point you're allowed to use what you found anyway you want.

The BBC not valuing them is your interpretation, they're allowed to value them being destroyed and unreleased. If someone "found" the Christine Chubbuck tapes and released them, would that also be fair game?

Who is the person to take responsibility in that case? The leaker or those who couldn't properly (according to you) dispose of the property? You're putting the responsibility on the victim.

You can't demand everyone to understand these thing, how far are you allowed to go? Restoring deleted data on a hard-drive? The intention was obviously to delete the data, but incompetent. The simplest solution is that intellectual property stays with the creator, period.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#146

Post by JohnFen »

paulmd wrote: post #125
avar wrote: post #111

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…

In the US it’s legally clear that if it’s in the trash it’s fair game. Your employer could fire you if they catch you, but, the police for example are allowed to rummage your bin without a warrant if it’s out on the curb. And they base that on the expectation that hobos and everyone else is doing it already, so, it’s normalized here. On the other hand an employee probably wouldn’t get the copyright etc, it’s still th…

> In the US it’s legally clear that if it’s in the trash it’s fair game.

That's an oversimplification, and can vary from state to state (or even city to city). In my city, the trash is in a can owned by the waste management company. As soon as it's in the can, it's considered to be owned by that company. Anyone taking things out of the cans without permission are technically stealing. Things placed next to the can (oversized items and the like) are not protected in that way.

It also matters where the cans are placed. Even in places where trash is fair game, unless it's physically in a publicly-accessible place, you're trespassing to get to it.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#147

Post by jstarfish »

iudqnolq wrote: post #73
stevage wrote: post #32

Seems like an article that would have been vastly improved if they had simply put the question about an amnesty directly to the BBC and printed their response.

They did. The BBC carefully avoided saying anything meaningful. > The BBC said it was ready to talk to anyone with lost episodes. “We welcome members of the public contacting us regarding programmes they believe are lost archive recordings, and are happy to work with them to restore lost or missing programmes to the BBC archives,” it said.

> They did. The BBC carefully avoided saying anything meaningful.

I think it can be interpreted a little more charitably than that:

> We welcome members of the public contacting us regarding programmes they believe are lost archive recordings

They're literally feeding lines to potential respondents, to help them avoid implicating themselves in theft. You didn't take reels from the studio, you found "lost recordings" they were looking for.

> and are happy to work with them to restore lost or missing programmes to the BBC archives

They're doing it again here. It's not "returning shit you stole," it's "restoring lost or missing programmes." Return it as lost and stick to your story.

FWIW, here in the US "we will work with you" is the exact same verbiage we use in calls to recover lost equipment we actually need but retain discretion in litigation over.

We don't commit to promises of amnesty because sometimes it turns out you've been dumping brand-new equipment off the loading dock and selling it on eBay for years, and that's not worth looking past just for the return of one item.

But if you happen to have the one thing we're looking for and weren't misappropriating millions of dollars in assets in addition to the lost item, we just want it back and won't ask questions.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#148

Post by staticman2 »

fingerlocks wrote: post #141
staticman2 wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You asked "Do you have any examples of charges and convictions on theft without a prior claim of deprivation to a good or service from an owner?" 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 sur…

No, because you stole in front of a cop. If you stole from a comatose person in the witness of non-cop, and that non-cop has authority of agency over the comatose, they can can press charges and you can be arrested. Does that help?

You seem to be inventing legal terms and ideas like an improvisational poet ("authority of agency over the comatose"????).

How could that possibly help?

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#149

Post by benj111 »

worksonmine wrote: post #145
benj111 wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Add complexity... You aren't adding complexity, you're changing the situation entirely. The BBC threw things away. they meant to throw things away, because they didn't value them. If you throw my phone away, that doesn't mean I don't value it. If you throw a phone with nudes on, that you don't want people to see, then you obviously value your privacy and shouldn't have thrown your phone away with nudes on. At some p…

> You aren't adding complexity, you're changing the situation entirely I'm not changing anything from the perspective of the dumpster diver, which is my point. The rest of the discussion is just you grasping at straws to make a point you're allowed to use what you found anyway you want. The BBC not valuing them is your interpretation, they're allowed to value them being destroyed and unreleased. If someone "found" th…

>The simplest solution is that intellectual property stays with the creator, period.

The original issue isn't one intellectual property you know. It's one of storing 'stolen' property.

I don't think I've advanced an opinion on ip.

If I throw away, sell or give away a music cd I don't think that implies that I'm giving away a license to reproduce that cd.

Your nude example, as I pointed out is an issue for just the one copy, which has nothing to do with IP rights.

Re: Lost "Doctor Who" episodes found but owner is reluctant to hand them to BBC

#150

Post by fingerlocks »

staticman2 wrote: post #148
fingerlocks wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because you stole in front of a cop. If you stole from a comatose person in the witness of non-cop, and that non-cop has authority of agency over the comatose, they can can press charges and you can be arrested. Does that help?

You seem to be inventing legal terms and ideas like an improvisational poet ("authority of agency over the comatose"????). How could that possibly help?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_agency
Post reply on HN