71–80 of 158 posts
> These collectors were seen as criminals, but now we can see they are really saviours. An amnesty would stop them being frightened of prosecution,” he said. The UK is unusual in that it has no statute of limitations for most crimes besides "summary offenses" (equivalent to US misdemeanors): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_periods_in_the_Unit...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because someone else might want to remember
[flagged]
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.
> 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.
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…
> These collectors were seen as criminals, but now we can see they are really saviours. An amnesty would stop them being frightened of prosecution,” he said. The UK is unusual in that it has no statute of limitations for most crimes besides "summary offenses" (equivalent to US misdemeanors): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limitation_periods_in_the_Unit...
Is that unusual among all the countries of the world? Or is the US unusual for having a statute of limitations?
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because someone else might want to remember
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think most people also concluded that this was statement of my personal position. It certainly is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because someone else might want to remember
[flagged]
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/22/arts/television/mrs-roper...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I think most people also concluded that this was statement of my personal position. It certainly is not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because someone else might want to remember
[flagged]
Care to quantify that? It's not 0%.
Even 1% of view time thrown at older content is a lot of hours.
Americans watch something like 1.5 billion hours of video per day when we combine TV and internet.
If we look at the broadcast channels in the US, and estimate they put out 20 hours of shows on the average day, then a historic archive 70 years deep would have half a million hours of video.
If one tenth of one percent of view time went to old broadcast shows in particular, then that's 3x the archive size daily and 1000x the archive size yearly.
And all the standard definition content combined would be well under a petabyte.