6 ms·

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

by avar 3y ago

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 take anything, even if it had been thrown out." I think making this an offense is insane, but I don't see how these cases are any more ambiguous than if the same happened yesterday. The question is whether the owner of property has a right to order its destruction, and whether an employee (or equivalent) is stealing or legitimately salvaging if they "rescue" said property from the trash.

benj111 3y ago
Legal or not, the BBC obviously put a value of zero on these things when they threw them away. So who has lost, what value needs to be recovered? There's no reasonable reason for anyone to pursue legal action, it would just be vexatious and / or a waste of tax payer money.
- Keloran 3y ago
  You don’t need a loss to occur for there to be a crime “the trump defense” If I break into your house, eat your food, but leave money on the counter for the same value, you didn’t make a loss, but I’m sure you would want me to be arrested
  - benj111 3y ago
    Yes the crime of breaking and entering. If I took a piece of potato peel out of your bin that was on the pavement, that might technically be a crime (I don't know). But are you going to pursue a civil suit? What compensation are you going to get? Are the police or CPS going to prosecute? Is it in the national interest? Or are they wasting resources for no reason. The BBC are in no way being harmed by someone who has permission to be on the premises taking something that the BBC literally believes to be rubbish. There's a legal concept of irrationality. This would seem to be an example of that.
  - dolni 3y ago
    The loss here is the psychological impact of knowing your home has been violated, and thereby feeling less safe. Which is quite substantial for many.
- avar 3y ago
  > There's no reasonable reason for anyone to pursue legal action, Yes, I agree with you, but clearly this is illegal in the UK. I'm only narrowly commenting on how in this case the passage of time doesn't seem to have impacted anyone's ability to discern the facts of the case.
- worksonmine 3y ago
  > 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.
  - benj111 3y ago
    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 eBay, whereas if the BBC had sold the tapes on eBay, presumably we wouldn't be having this conversation, so the comparison is flawed.
    - worksonmine 3y ago
      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.
      - benj111 3y ago
        >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.
paulmd 3y ago
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 their intellectual property, it’s just a rare collectible item that got thrown away and is now properly recognized.
- RecycledEle 3y ago
  Not in Texas. Dumpster divers are usually charged with crimes here, and I think it's absurd to charge them with crimes.
  - HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
    "Texas. It's a whole other country."
  - brewdad 3y ago
    The real question is whether or not it is legal to shoot someone looking through your trash? Sadly, I’m pretty sure the answer is yes.
    - RecycledEle 3y ago
      Not technically, but I would not be surprised if some cops looked the other way.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > 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.

by avar 3y ago

benj111 3y ago

Legal or not, the BBC obviously put a value of zero on these things when they threw them away. So who has lost, what value needs to be recovered? There's no reasonable reason for anyone to pursue legal action, it would just be vexatious and / or a waste of tax payer money.

Keloran 3y ago
You don’t need a loss to occur for there to be a crime “the trump defense” If I break into your house, eat your food, but leave money on the counter for the same value, you didn’t make a loss, but I’m sure you would want me to be arrested
- benj111 3y ago
  Yes the crime of breaking and entering. If I took a piece of potato peel out of your bin that was on the pavement, that might technically be a crime (I don't know). But are you going to pursue a civil suit? What compensation are you going to get? Are the police or CPS going to prosecute? Is it in the national interest? Or are they wasting resources for no reason. The BBC are in no way being harmed by someone who has permission to be on the premises taking something that the BBC literally believes to be rubbish. There's a legal concept of irrationality. This would seem to be an example of that.
- dolni 3y ago
  The loss here is the psychological impact of knowing your home has been violated, and thereby feeling less safe. Which is quite substantial for many.
avar 3y ago
> There's no reasonable reason for anyone to pursue legal action, Yes, I agree with you, but clearly this is illegal in the UK. I'm only narrowly commenting on how in this case the passage of time doesn't seem to have impacted anyone's ability to discern the facts of the case.
worksonmine 3y ago
> 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.
- benj111 3y ago
  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 eBay, whereas if the BBC had sold the tapes on eBay, presumably we wouldn't be having this conversation, so the comparison is flawed.
  - worksonmine 3y ago
    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.
    - benj111 3y ago
      >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.

paulmd 3y ago

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 their intellectual property, it’s just a rare collectible item that got thrown away and is now properly recognized.

RecycledEle 3y ago
Not in Texas. Dumpster divers are usually charged with crimes here, and I think it's absurd to charge them with crimes.
- HeyLaughingBoy 3y ago
  "Texas. It's a whole other country."
- brewdad 3y ago
  The real question is whether or not it is legal to shoot someone looking through your trash? Sadly, I’m pretty sure the answer is yes.
  - RecycledEle 3y ago
    Not technically, but I would not be surprised if some cops looked the other way.
JohnFen 3y ago
> 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.