61–70 of 158 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He should give the tapes to the British museum out of spite. They BBC will never get the back and the British Museum doesn't care what crimes were committed as long as their collection grows.
Send the tapes to Greece, Egypt, Nigeria, what-have-you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can absolutely be arrested and charged for that in the US. The police just generally don't because failure in court is nigh-guaranteed with an uncooperative key witness.
Yeah, sure, you can be arrested for anything or nothing at all. Sorry I wasn’t clear. 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? Or are we just being pedantic?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The BBC does not have any discretion over who is prosecuted for a crime though. They can give their opinion but it's up to the police. So a public promise doesn't actually hold any weight.
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?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, sure, you can be arrested for anything or nothing at all. Sorry I wasn’t clear. 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? Or are we just being pedantic?
Well, sure, here's a quick example of an uncooperative victim and the state attempting (and in this case failing) to prosecute on robbery charges anyway: https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/news/crime/2009/03/21/...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That doesn't make any sense. OP is about reports that BBC refuses to make any legal promises and talk only vaguely about cooperating with owners, when it would be so easy for them to simply publicly promise to not prosecute material stole before, say, 1990. Obviously, granting 'an amnesty for stolen episodes' is even easier for fake episodes which were never stolen in the first place... The credibility of the claims…
The BBC does not have any discretion over who is prosecuted for a crime though. They can give their opinion but it's up to the police. So a public promise doesn't actually hold any weight.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because someone else might want to remember
[flagged]
Do you limit yourself to reading books released in 2023, or do you give any book a chance regardless of age? Most of the greatest books ever written were not first published this year!
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 about legal implications I suspect that most just would rather keep it. If they really wanted to return it they could hand it off to someone who would be an intermediary. So the real danger is that once they die, whoever inherits their collection may not care about it and junk the whole thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why preserve what you wish not to remember.
Maybe you don't value history, but many people do. The point isn't entertainment, or the kind of entertainment you're imagining. Of course this won't compete on the streaming market. The point is that it is a time capsule of an age we've already forgotten.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The easiest solution would be to . . . That doesn't meet the goal of amnesty. Before the footage is made available, the people holding that footage have leverage. Once they share it somehow, the leverage is gone and it's unlikely that they'd be given amnesty. In fact, the act of sharing the footage has some nonzero chance of revealing people . . .
They wouldn’t need amnesty if they can never be identified. Also, they could return the BBCs property anonymously and release the digitised versions after that.
FYI, archive.org has a bunch of whats been available: https://archive.org/details/doctorwho_s01 https://archive.org/details/doctorwho_s02 https://archive.org/details/doctorwho_s03_v2 https://archive.org/details/doctorwho_s04 https://archive.org/details/doctorwho_s05 https://archive.org/details/doctorwho_s06 https://archive.org/details/doctorwho_s07 https://archive.org/details/doctorwho_s08