> 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.

> 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.