91–100 of 158 posts
I didn't know anything about this; it's quite interesting. ...the infamous arrest of comedian Bob Monkhouse in 1978 has not been forgotten, Franklin suspects: “Monkhouse was a private collector and was accused of pirating videos. He even had some of his archive seized. Sadly people still believe they could have their films confiscated.” https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-mail/20180824/282703342...
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.
It’s not clear to me why we should have a hard and fast statute of limitations for that reason instead of simply factoring it in when deciding whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
The jury doesn't just live in a vaccum. There are rules for what kind of evidence is admissible to them, and we don't just leave it to the jury to yolo it.
Sometimes, those rules don't make 100% sense. That's the case with any set of rules (Especially ones surrounding legal procedure!). We set rules, because we think that they are a good idea most of the time.
And most of the time, for most crimes, the tradeoff between trying a decades-old case, and of preventing the harassment of an innocent person over a decades-old-case leans towards the latter.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because someone else might want to remember
[flagged]
I wasn’t born when those came out, either. My parents weren’t born when those played in theaters, for that matter. For many, neither were my grandparents.
I watch TV shows from before I was born, pretty often.
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.
It’s not clear to me why we should have a hard and fast statute of limitations for that reason instead of simply factoring it in when deciding whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
In that model and imbalance of resources, having statue of limitations in place alleviates the need for defendents to, for example, keep records of their actions and reasoning for 30+ years. How would you navigate being charged for tax evasion from 35 years ago, for example?
EDIT: to be clear, I don't think this is necessarily a precise defense of statuetes of limitations specifically, just a "well they're not a bad idea" sort of defense
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There have been a lot of attempts to extort money out of the BBC by people falsely claiming that they have lost episodes over the years, they may simply not believe these claims are as credible as the article suggests.
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…
Preservers of cultural memory should be rewarded. Canada spent years digitizing classic TV and published the shows on a Youtube channel, then suddenly deleted all the content without notice to archivers, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35716982 . In the absence of social contracts for preservation, we are left with defensive archiving.
Why preserve what you wish not to remember.
Perhaps you meant in the sense of a deliberate memory hole (in the Orwellian sense), in other words eliminating that which you don't want others to discover.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s not clear to me why we should have a hard and fast statute of limitations for that reason instead of simply factoring it in when deciding whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
In adversarial systems, the prosecution's objective isn't to reach a truth, but instead to fight to convict you. This incentivises dirty tricks, misrepresentation of facts, and ultimately the full force of state resources looking at putting you behind bars. And during this whole process you are often locked up anyways for this process, independent of actual guilt. In that model and imbalance of resources, having stat…
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.
It’s not clear to me why we should have a hard and fast statute of limitations for that reason instead of simply factoring it in when deciding whether the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is how it feels to me. Dump them on a pirate site, no reason to give them to the BBC if they have no interest in trying to get them
Are we sure the copyright belongs to BBC and not the royal family?
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…
I’m not finding this claim being made elsewhere in the comments here. Do you have a link?