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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.