rather odd ideas

[lpmoderator]

richardbignell said:

lpmoderator said:

On what possible basis can you assert that television programmes are "morally" owned by the general public?
Richard

The obvious one. They are a popular art form, enjoyed by millions (in the BBC's case, paid for by licence money). They are in our collective memory as much as a film, a famous painting, a novel etc. etc. The TV output sums up any given era as much as any other medium does. As such, they are "owned" by us all (in as much as the end result of any art form is) and demand to be preserved for the nation. Some things can't be reduced to mere matters of money or economical expedience.

[Rich Cornock]

wow gentleman, i think we are getting off the topic here. this thread was started with the hope that people would suggest ideas for program recovery..........lets keep it like that

[Greg H]

lpmoderator said:

richardbignell said:

lpmoderator said:

On what possible basis can you assert that television programmes are "morally" owned by the general public?
Richard

The obvious one. They are a popular art form, enjoyed by millions (in the BBC's case, paid for by licence money). They are in our collective memory as much as a film, a famous painting, a novel etc. etc. The TV output sums up any given era as much as any other medium does. As such, they are "owned" by us all (in as much as the end result of any art form is) and demand to be preserved for the nation. Some things can't be reduced to mere matters of money or economical expedience.

Very well said!

[Greg H]

funkyfarmer said:

wow gentleman, i think we are getting off the topic here. this thread was started with the hope that people would suggest ideas for program recovery..........lets keep it like that

Welcome to the forum, lol

[Daniel O'Brien]

I'm dubious of any argument that equates BBC policy of the 1960s and 1970s with Nazi Germany. It's a great pity that so much television fell victim to contractual and economic considerations but no-one involved with these decisions deserves to be branded a villain or neo-fascist. I wish the BBC had been more flexible when dealing with people like Peter Cook, and I'd like to know the reasons they gave for not taking up his offer.

As for future programme recoveries, I live in hope that collectors and former BBC employees may return some missing items.

[Richard Bignell]

lpmoderator said:

The obvious one. They are a popular art form, enjoyed by millions (in the BBC's case, paid for by licence money). They are in our collective memory as much as a film, a famous painting, a novel etc. etc. The TV output sums up any given era as much as any other medium does. As such, they are "owned" by us all (in as much as the end result of any art form is) and demand to be preserved for the nation. Some things can't be reduced to mere matters of money or economical expedience.

This still give absolutely *no* explanation as to why they, in any sense, are morally "owned" by the public. Thin doesn't even cover it!

The fact they are paid for by the licence fee has nothing to do with it as that gives the public no ownership of the end product.

Richard

[lpmoderator]

richardbignell said:

This still give absolutely *no* explanation as to why they, in any sense, are morally "owned" by the public. Thin doesn't even cover it!

The fact they are paid for by the licence fee has nothing to do with it as that gives the public no ownership of the end product.

Richard

You haven't given any reason as to why they AREN'T. No idea where your point of view is coming from, i'm afraid. As it's public money that made the programmes, I happen to think it does give the public a (very big) stake in the matter.

You either believe TV is, at the very least, a unique form of social history or you don't - if you do, then it follows that you believe that it should be preserved above and beyond the everyday business of running a broadcasting company.

[John Fleming]

dobrien said:

I'm dubious of any argument that equates BBC policy of the 1960s and 1970s with Nazi Germany. It's a great pity that so much television fell victim to contractual and economic considerations but no-one involved with these decisions deserves to be branded a villain or neo-fascist. I wish the BBC had been more flexible when dealing with people like Peter Cook, and I'd like to know the reasons they gave for not taking up his offer.

I wasn't actually calling anybody a neo-fascist, I was comparing one specific act committed by the nazis with one committed by the BBC. Television is an art form and destruction of art is the same thing regardless of who it is committed by.

I'm with lpmoderator by the way, while ITV may have the argument that the programmes were theirs to do what they please with them (which still doesn't justify junking them), the BBC have no such argument, the programmes were paid for and therefore belong to the people of the UK.

[Richard Bignell]

johnf said:

I'm with lpmoderator by the way, while ITV may have the argument that the programmes were theirs to do what they please with them (which still doesn't justify junking them), the BBC have no such argument, the programmes were paid for and therefore belong to the people of the UK.

That's not true *at all*.

Richard

[John Fleming]

Surely the BBC is under public ownership, isn't that what we pay the licence fee for? And if the people of the UK collectively own the BBC then isn't the same is true of its programmes?

[John Fleming]

I've been thinking about this and while you are probably right from a purely legal point of view it is morally wrong. I've thought of a hypothetical example as to why it shouldn't even be legal for the BBC to have done this.

Just suppose I were a rich property developer with no interest in architecture or history. A dilapidated stately home comes onto the market which I see as a nice money-spinner if I demolish it and build a large housing estate in its place. If the BBC are within their rights to destroy their property then this is now my property and I am equally within my rights to bulldoze it and build the estate, but I cannot do this. It doesn't even need to be something as historic as a listed building, councils have been known to slap orders on trees for God's sake, the owner of a tree can't chop it down if the council decrees not!

If anyone thinks my comparison of television programmes to a listed building is unreasonable, let's try another wildly exaggerated hypothetical, albeit impossible, scenario. You inherit a valuable historical building from a hitherto-unknown but wealthy relative. You reckon it should be a listed building, but somehow it has escaped being. You are offered all 108 lost episodes of Doctor Who in exchange for the building, and if you don't exchange it then he will burn them. You know the buyer wants to demolish it and build a housing estate. Would you exchange it? I would.

[Richard Bignell]

johnf said:

Just suppose I were a rich property developer with no interest in architecture or history. A dilapidated stately home comes onto the market which I see as a nice money-spinner if I demolish it and build a large housing estate in its place. If the BBC are within their rights to destroy their property then this is now my property and I am equally within my rights to bulldoze it and build the estate, but I cannot do this.

Yes you can. It's your property. *Unless*, as you say, it is classified a listed building or it is declared as being unsafe.

But these things obviously can't work in retrospect. Just like an unwanted building that's deemed to have no value and is demolished, television companies largely viewed the programmes that they had made and shown as being subsequently valueless and likewise they got rid of them. However regrettable it may seem with the benefit of hindsight, there was nothing to prevent them from doing so.

Given that there was no "preservation order" placed on television, then the claim that anyone had done something that was in any way illegal is nonsense.

Richard

[John Fleming]

How about the tree nonsense then? That really does happen, the council can tell you a tree in your garden is of historic importance and cannot be pulled down. Only Green party fanatics could say a tree is more important than an episode of Dr Who.

[Rich Cornock]

blimey this gets better all the time, now we are talking about trees

[Richard Bignell]

johnf said:

How about the tree nonsense then? That really does happen, the council can tell you a tree in your garden is of historic importance and cannot be pulled down.

What's wrong with tree preservation orders? Trees, like bananas, are good.

Only Green party fanatics could say a tree is more important than an episode of Dr Who.

What on earth are you dribbling on about now?

Richard