So unless I missed something, I didn’t see any place where the BBC went after the collectors for illegal recording. This sounds like they’re scared of something that hasn’t happened and, at least in this case the BBC is very happy to have found a copy.
This would reassure British amateur collectors that their private archives will not be confiscated if they come forward and that they will be safe from prosecution for having stored stolen BBC property, something several fear.
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
That’s more like dumpster diving. I wouldn’t exactly consider that theft
That’s more like dumpster diving. I wouldn’t exactly consider that theft
You’re not a corporate entity trying to maintain a stranglehold on an IP. I don’t think there’s any depth they are unwilling to plumb to protect and enhance their profits.
P.S. Yes I know the BBC is publicly funded by the British people but it is also a corporate entity that makes money on its unique IPs just like any other… cough Disney cough
While collectors are in no real danger, the infamous arrest of comedian Bob Monkhouse in 1978 has not been forgotten, Franklin suspects: “Monkhouse was a private collector and was accused of pirating videos. He even had some of his archive seized. Sadly people still believe they could have their films confiscated.”
Even if I wasn't arrested, I wouldn't want any of my collection seized.
I mean that was 1978 when the policy of junking was still active and the BBC were more actively dickish in their bureaucracy. These days because that policy has been so roundly condemned as being short sighted and destructive to their own legacy I doubt they'd be so bullish.
Now I'd expect them to be more actively dickish in their attempt to get 'marketable product' or whatever the jargon is however. And if I was a collector I'd know that I was in a very grey area legally so I'd still be extremely cautious.
I can't say I'm completely sympathetic to the collectors either though, in that they know they're sitting on something literally millions of people would love to see and they don't want to share it just because it's theirs.
The article also says these tend to be people who lived it. You see that 1978 thing as an historical anomaly, but they lived it. These were people who were repeatedly threatened to lose their jobs and be arrested for salvaging such things
If we are not careful they will eventually be dumped again in house clearances, because a lot of the owners of these important collections are now in their 80s and are very wary,”
Yeah this is the part that’s missing from the title. It’s not that these guys are unwilling to hand over the footage they just don’t want to be prosecuted for having a snatched it back in the day (incidentally preserving and protecting it for the benefit of all the fans). All the BBC needs to do is officially confirm that they will never do that. If they can’t do that then fuck 'em.
There is nothing in the law that makes that a relevant factor, and there are simple examples where you'd clearly not want it to be. If I was working on a novel, sent a copy to an editor, but then my hard drive crashed, it'd be more than a little annoying if that suddenly voided my copyright and my publisher then proceeded to publish my novel without giving me any money at all since it's suddenly become public domain.
I get the point you're trying to make, but this isn't the kind of thing you generally build into law because there are always edge cases that can cause problems. It's simpler to correctly assume that the copyright holder almost certainly won't object the existence of the copy while retaining the rights to them.
Yeah that makes sense. It’s a curious situation though. How would you even be able to go about proving that you own the copyright to that novel unless your publisher cooperates. I know courts would use common sense etc but it could definitely result in some weird arguments.
Ultimately, this is the reason judges exist. At least under Common Law, statutes are not meant to explicitly outline every possible edge case, and judges are meant to be able to analyze the situation and apply some human sense to it.
Add comment