4 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.
    - worksonmine 3y ago
      > You aren't adding complexity, you're changing the situation entirely I'm not changing anything from the perspective of the dumpster diver, which is my point. The rest of the discussion is just you grasping at straws to make a point you're allowed to use what you found anyway you want. The BBC not valuing them is your interpretation, they're allowed to value them being destroyed and unreleased. If someone "found" the Christine Chubbuck tapes and released them, would that also be fair game? Who is the person to take responsibility in that case? The leaker or those who couldn't properly (according to you) dispose of the property? You're putting the responsibility on the victim. You can't demand everyone to understand these thing, how far are you allowed to go? Restoring deleted data on a hard-drive? The intention was obviously to delete the data, but incompetent. The simplest solution is that intellectual property stays with the creator, period.
      - benj111 3y ago
        >The simplest solution is that intellectual property stays with the creator, period. The original issue isn't one intellectual property you know. It's one of storing 'stolen' property. I don't think I've advanced an opinion on ip. If I throw away, sell or give away a music cd I don't think that implies that I'm giving away a license to reproduce that cd. Your nude example, as I pointed out is an issue for just the one copy, which has nothing to do with IP rights.

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.
  - worksonmine 3y ago
    > You aren't adding complexity, you're changing the situation entirely I'm not changing anything from the perspective of the dumpster diver, which is my point. The rest of the discussion is just you grasping at straws to make a point you're allowed to use what you found anyway you want. The BBC not valuing them is your interpretation, they're allowed to value them being destroyed and unreleased. If someone "found" the Christine Chubbuck tapes and released them, would that also be fair game? Who is the person to take responsibility in that case? The leaker or those who couldn't properly (according to you) dispose of the property? You're putting the responsibility on the victim. You can't demand everyone to understand these thing, how far are you allowed to go? Restoring deleted data on a hard-drive? The intention was obviously to delete the data, but incompetent. The simplest solution is that intellectual property stays with the creator, period.
    - benj111 3y ago
      >The simplest solution is that intellectual property stays with the creator, period. The original issue isn't one intellectual property you know. It's one of storing 'stolen' property. I don't think I've advanced an opinion on ip. If I throw away, sell or give away a music cd I don't think that implies that I'm giving away a license to reproduce that cd. Your nude example, as I pointed out is an issue for just the one copy, which has nothing to do with IP rights.