5 ms·

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 bel

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.

gwern 3y ago
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 is irrelevant.
- justrealist 3y ago
  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.
  - justinclift 3y ago
    Someone would have to tell the police about it though.
  - fingerlocks 3y ago
    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?
    - crooked-v 3y ago
      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.
      - fingerlocks 3y ago
        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?
        crooked-v 3y ago
        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/witnesses-stay-silent-robbery-case/64982425007/ https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/news/crime/2009/03/21/...
        fingerlocks 3y ago
        “charges and convictions” was not an inclusive-or statement
        ummonk 3y ago
        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”.
        fingerlocks 3y ago
        Yes I did. Which I clarified because a pedantic ball flew over the first goal post.
        staticman2 3y ago
        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 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?
    - CamperBob2 3y ago
      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.
      - fingerlocks 3y ago
        He was not charged with theft.
  - gwern 3y ago
    A public promise holds plenty of weight - assuming it's legal in the UK for some police busybody to prosecute on the BBC's behalf without the BBC's consent, it is nevertheless hard to prosecute a crime when your 'victim' is strenuously criticizing you publicly for it and refusing to cooperate. And if you were right that it was so easy and meant so little, then all the more reason to make that public promise, no?
- doctor_radium 3y ago
  Going forward, it would seem like a good idea for the UK government to stop treating the removal of items from garbage bins as a crime. I'm no lawyer, but a quick web search suggests that nowhere in the US is "dumpster diving" considered illegal.
  - P_I_Staker 3y ago
    Oh believe me, it's more than considered illegal. It is literally illegal.
- Mindwipe 3y ago
  > 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. I'm not sure I buy the article's premise that this is the main issue to be honest. My understanding is that the main problem is simply that some of the people involved just want a bunch of money, and the BBC finds it very hard to countenance why they should pay someone for stuff stolen from them, especially at not very realistic valuations.

gwern 3y ago

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 is irrelevant.

justrealist 3y ago
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.
- justinclift 3y ago
  Someone would have to tell the police about it though.
- fingerlocks 3y ago
  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?
  - crooked-v 3y ago
    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.
    - fingerlocks 3y ago
      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?
      - crooked-v 3y ago
        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/witnesses-stay-silent-robbery-case/64982425007/ https://www.norwichbulletin.com/story/news/crime/2009/03/21/...
        fingerlocks 3y ago
        “charges and convictions” was not an inclusive-or statement
        ummonk 3y ago
        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”.
        fingerlocks 3y ago
        Yes I did. Which I clarified because a pedantic ball flew over the first goal post.
        staticman2 3y ago
        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 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?
  - CamperBob2 3y ago
    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.
    - fingerlocks 3y ago
      He was not charged with theft.
- gwern 3y ago
  A public promise holds plenty of weight - assuming it's legal in the UK for some police busybody to prosecute on the BBC's behalf without the BBC's consent, it is nevertheless hard to prosecute a crime when your 'victim' is strenuously criticizing you publicly for it and refusing to cooperate. And if you were right that it was so easy and meant so little, then all the more reason to make that public promise, no?
doctor_radium 3y ago
Going forward, it would seem like a good idea for the UK government to stop treating the removal of items from garbage bins as a crime. I'm no lawyer, but a quick web search suggests that nowhere in the US is "dumpster diving" considered illegal.
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  Oh believe me, it's more than considered illegal. It is literally illegal.
Mindwipe 3y ago
> 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. I'm not sure I buy the article's premise that this is the main issue to be honest. My understanding is that the main problem is simply that some of the people involved just want a bunch of money, and the BBC finds it very hard to countenance why they should pay someone for stuff stolen from them, especially at not very realistic valuations.