KDUH UPDATE

[Speed Racer]

Two words: Intellectual Property.

Intellectual property can be valued - - if it has value. In order for the State to prove its case, it had to prove not just that tapes were erased, but that the contents of the tapes had actual value.

The transcript of the preliminary hearing notes that KDUH's station manager admitted that he had no idea what was on any of the morgue tapes. The examples he gave, of footage he believed to be on the tapes, were shots of "cows in a field," "cornfields," and "Chadron State College" - - not exactly the Zapruder film. KDUH had not made a claim to its insurance company for the tapes; it could describe no changes in the quality of its broadcasts based on the loss of the tapes; and five months after the tapes were erased, KDUH had not purchased another local station's stock footage which had been offered to KDUH.

These are signs that the claimed value of the tapes was grossly overblown. KDUH's first claimed estimate of the value of the tapes was over $250,000. Then $21,000 then $3,250.

Sounds like they were pulling numbers out of a hat, doesn't it?

And what of that $3,250 KDUH recieved in "restitution"? Did KDUH in fact replace the "valuable" stock footage with that money? No they did not. Which of course goes to prove that the video was unnecessary. Which of course goes to prove that the video was worthless. Which of course goes to prove that no crime was committed.

Those tapes were kept and used in a manner that suggested no value. [Compare these tapes with archived footage on older tapes which KDUH kept in a locked safe in the basement, which were not erased.]

And of course we all recognize the irrefutable fact that videotape was made to be erased and reused.

The fact of the matter is that at least 80% of the morgue footage had never been used (and perhaps much more than 80%); no one knew how many times any one, much less each, of the 92 tapes had been accessed and used before erasure; as much as 75% of the morgue footage was repeated duplications of the remaining 25%; and that even though KDUH was understaffed, it was actually paying less overtime to reporters as of the date of the preliminary hearing than back when it was fully staffed and had morgue footage. The station manager could not say whether any overtime at all had been allocated for the specific purpose of replacing any morgue footage.

Or whether that morgue footage was replaced.

Conviction for criminal mischief requires proof that the property that is "damaged" actually had value before its "damage." If the property was treated as garbage by its owners to begin with, then its damage does not constitute a crime.

[Speed Racer]

First appearance: If a formal complaint has not been filed (say a burglary suspect got nabbed in the house by an officer on patrol) then the judge/magistrate reviews the officer's arrest affidavit for "probable cause" for the arrest. If the suspect is still in jail, bail is set, and the defendant is ordered to return to court at a later date for the reading of formal charges.

Once that occurs, a preliminary hearing date is set to determine whether a felony occurred and the liklihood of this defendant committing it.

You have never been to court. I knew it from previous posts, but it's as clear as moutain water now.

The magistrate certainly asks for and receives a plea from the defendant at the initial appearance. A plea is necessary in order to set the date for a preliminary hearing. If the defendant wishes to plead guilty, there is no need for a preliminary hearing or wasting the court's time.

This is why it is done. This is how you have revealed yourself ill informed.

[!]

You have never been to court. I knew it from previous posts, but it's as clear as moutain water now. This is why it is done. This is how you have revealed yourself ill informed.Are you kidding? The guy goes to court for a living.

Anyone would trust his expertise far more than yours.

Your legal knowledge conists of saying whatever you wish were true and then repeating it, hoping people will believe you, whether you post as Speed Racer or Zero.

They don't fall for it, of course.

You shouldn't have erased the tapes in the first place. We wouldn't be having this thread if you'd just shown some maturity instead of acting like a child.

[Speed Racer]

Are you kidding? The guy goes to court for a living.
Anyone would trust his expertise far more than yours.
Your legal knowledge conists of saying whatever you wish were true and then repeating it .

The magistrate certainly asks for and receives a plea from the defendant at the initial appearance. A plea is necessary in order to set the date for a preliminary hearing. If the defendant wishes to plead guilty, there is no need for a preliminary hearing or wasting the court's time.

Pick up a telephone and call and ask your local county clerk. If you dare to discover that you are wrong.

I wish you well.

[!]

I wish you well.
Too bad the feeling's not mutual, Zero.

[Speed Racer]

Pick up a telephone and call and ask your local county clerk. If you dare to discover that you are wrong.

The magistrate certainly asks for and receives a plea from the defendant at the initial appearance.

[Mr. Pratfall]

I daresay Murphy and Camp would NOT be happy with the continued existence of this thread. Right or wrong, I wouldn't want people to keep talking about this years after it happened.

[Speed Racer]

Are you kidding? The guy goes to court for a living. Anyone would trust his expertise far more than yours.

Afraid to make a telephone call? Ask your local county clerk if a defendant enters a plea at the initial appearance.

Then tell us who's right.

[MyracleMan]

Ten pages of this crap?

Now it's eleven, Spike.

I say again, to Sir Speed Fast Racer Zero Guy...

jack@ss.

[Speed Racer]

Are you kidding? The guy goes to court for a living.
Anyone would trust his expertise far more than yours.
Anyone who trusts the alleged "expertise" of Another Side does so at their own risk. He is provably wrong.

He says unequivocally that defendants DO NOT enter a plea at an initial hearing. And of course, like most of what he bothers to post, he is 100% wrong.

And I, like most of what I post, am 100% right. We're not discussing opinions here. You can check the facts, and because you remain silent, I assume that you have. And it embarrasses you. As it should.

You should be ashamed because you refuse to take the facts into account before you blindly post a tirade based upon emotions rather than fact.
Maybe after this you will learn. And I've done my good deed for the day. You don't have to thank me, but you should.

[Speed Racer]

jack@ss.
Defend the Duhamels all you like. But you know I'm right.

Intellectual property can be valued - - if it has value. In order for the State to prove its case, it had to prove not just that tapes were erased, but that the contents of the tapes had actual value.

The transcript of the preliminary hearing notes that KDUH's station manager admitted that he had no idea what was on any of the morgue tapes. The examples he gave, of footage he believed to be on the tapes, were shots of "cows in a field," "cornfields," and "Chadron State College" - - not exactly the Zapruder film. KDUH had not made a claim to its insurance company for the tapes; it could describe no changes in the quality of its broadcasts based on the loss of the tapes; and five months after the tapes were erased, KDUH had not purchased another local station's stock footage which had been offered to KDUH.

These are signs that the claimed value of the tapes was grossly overblown. KDUH's first claimed estimate of the value of the tapes was over $250,000. Then $21,000 then $3,250.

Sounds like they were pulling numbers out of a hat, doesn't it?

And what of that $3,250 KDUH recieved in "restitution"? Did KDUH in fact replace the "valuable" stock footage with that money? No they did not. Which of course goes to prove that the video was unnecessary. Which of course goes to prove that the video was worthless. Which of course goes to prove that no crime was committed.

Those tapes were kept and used in a manner that suggested no value. [Compare these tapes with archived footage on older tapes which KDUH kept in a locked safe in the basement, which were not erased.]

And of course we all recognize the irrefutable fact that videotape was made to be erased and reused.

The fact of the matter is that at least 80% of the morgue footage had never been used (and perhaps much more than 80%); no one knew how many times any one, much less each, of the 92 tapes had been accessed and used before erasure; as much as 75% of the morgue footage was repeated duplications of the remaining 25%; and that even though KDUH was understaffed, it was actually paying less overtime to reporters as of the date of the preliminary hearing than back when it was fully staffed and had morgue footage. The station manager could not say whether any overtime at all had been allocated for the specific purpose of replacing any morgue footage.

Or whether that morgue footage was replaced.

Conviction for criminal mischief requires proof that the property that is "damaged" actually had value before its "damage." If the property was treated as garbage by its owners to begin with, then its damage does not constitute a crime.

[ewink]

I still want an answer to:

1) Why would you be upset if I erased all your rewritable media;
2) Do you or do you not think you should be allowed to go into WalMart or Blockbuster or whatever and erased all their video tapes;
3) and do you believe that downloading copyrighted music and video files should be illegal.

Thank you.

[Roy Hobbs]

I'd like Hack Wilson to weigh in on this.

[MyracleMan]

Defend the Duhamels all you like.

I don't defend the Duhamels.

But what Camp and Murphy did was wrong.

No matter how you slice it, they destroyed file footage that belonged to their employer.

It was malicious.

It was intentional.

It was criminal.

They will never work in tv again.

[Marty McFly]

To go along with ewink's questions:

1) Why would you be upset if I erased all your rewritable media?
2) Do you or do you not think you should be allowed to go into WalMart or Blockbuster and erase their video tapes?
3) Do you believe that downloading copyrighted music and video files should be illegal?
4) If the tapes were actually meant to be erased, why weren't they erased following a newscast if they weren't going to be used again?

Eagerly awaiting the copy and pasted response from page 1 or 2...

[s'news]

I'd like Hack Wilson to weigh in on this.

He would correctly explain that adding cork to a bat makes it heavier.

[JoinUsForCake]

What part of "guilty plea" do you not understand.

And how's life outside TV news?
Seriously, what a mouth breather this Speedy goon is. Obviously he is harboring a lot of contempt for the business that he exiled himself from ever working in again.

[Speed Racer]

what Camp and Murphy did was wrong.
they destroyed file footage that belonged to their employer.
It was malicious.
It was intentional.
Perhaps, but it was not criminal.
Videotape was made to be erased. If KDUH truly did not want the video erased, simple preventative steps could have been taken, but were not.

[Speed Racer]

1) Why would you be upset if I erased all your rewritable media?

Yup. But I couldn't charge you with a crime.

2) Do you or do you not think you should be allowed to go into WalMart or Blockbuster and erase their video tapes?

If WalMart or Blockbuster paid me to use their videotape on a daily basis and erase their videotapes for reuse, I'd have to say yes. But you're just being silly. I don't think WalMart or Blockbuster pays people to reuse video as KDUH did and currently does.

3) Do you believe that downloading copyrighted music and video files should be illegal?

I plead the fifth.

4) If the tapes were actually meant to be erased, why weren't they erased following a newscast if they weren't going to be used again?
Videotape in general is an eraseable and reusable format. If KDUH truly did not want that video erased, simple preventative steps could have been taken, but were not.

Intellectual property can be valued - - if it has value. In order for the State to prove its case, it had to prove not just that tapes were erased, but that the contents of the tapes had actual value.

The transcript of the preliminary hearing notes that KDUH's station manager admitted that he had no idea what was on any of the morgue tapes. The examples he gave, of footage he believed to be on the tapes, were shots of "cows in a field," "cornfields," and "Chadron State College" - - not exactly the Zapruder film. KDUH had not made a claim to its insurance company for the tapes; it could describe no changes in the quality of its broadcasts based on the loss of the tapes; and five months after the tapes were erased, KDUH had not purchased another local station's stock footage which had been offered to KDUH.

These are signs that the claimed value of the tapes was grossly overblown. KDUH's first claimed estimate of the value of the tapes was over $250,000. Then $21,000 then $3,250.

Sounds like they were pulling numbers out of a hat, doesn't it?

And what of that $3,250 KDUH recieved in "restitution"? Did KDUH in fact replace the "valuable" stock footage with that money? No they did not. Which of course goes to prove that the video was unnecessary. Which of course goes to prove that the video was worthless. Which of course goes to prove that no crime was committed.

Those tapes were kept and used in a manner that suggested no value. [Compare these tapes with archived footage on older tapes which KDUH kept in a locked safe in the basement, which were not erased.]

And of course we all recognize the irrefutable fact that videotape was made to be erased and reused.

The fact of the matter is that at least 80% of the morgue footage had never been used (and perhaps much more than 80%); no one knew how many times any one, much less each, of the 92 tapes had been accessed and used before erasure; as much as 75% of the morgue footage was repeated duplications of the remaining 25%; and that even though KDUH was understaffed, it was actually paying less overtime to reporters as of the date of the preliminary hearing than back when it was fully staffed and had morgue footage. The station manager could not say whether any overtime at all had been allocated for the specific purpose of replacing any morgue footage.

Or whether that morgue footage was replaced.

Conviction for criminal mischief requires proof that the property that is "damaged" actually had value before its "damage." If the property was treated as garbage by its owners to begin with, then its damage does not constitute a crime.

[Marty McFly]

Well that does it! I'm going to take my neighbors car to the scrap yard and have it incinerated since it's obvious that metal is meant to be reused again and again. :frustrated:

Of course YOU couldn't charge me with a crime (for erasing your hard drives), but you COULD sue me for damages...

By the way, I don't think you really believe the cow patties you're spewing on here. I think you have a bet with someone that if this thread hits 24 pages you win a hundred bucks or something.

That's my theory...

[SamG]

You just lead to more questions...
If KDUH truly did not want that video erased, simple preventative steps could have been taken, but were not.
Like what? Don't say using the 'record' tab. Bulk erasers don't give a rat's a$$ about record tabs. Locking the tapes up in a room? Then how could they be used as INTENDED?

You also haven't said WHY the idiots felt the tapes needed "cleaning".

And so what if it's not a crime? The idiots won't be hired in the business anywhere else. You're locked onto this "not a crime" BS, and that really doesn't matter. The fact is no station will hire the idiots because of this stunt.

[The Fedora]

but zerosirspeedypapertrailspeedraceretal says they have been hired in the biz, but they changed their names to protect the guilty...

[Mr. Pratfall]

I really think that whoever is behind this Speedy fellow thinks that what Murphy and Camp did was stupid, and is playing the obtuse strawman to keep people talking about it.

The continued conversation about it cannot be beneficial to the two reporters, who almost certainly want to whole thing to be forgotten.

[JoinUsForCake]

but zerosirspeedypapertrailspeedraceretal says they have been hired in the biz, but they changed their names to protect the guilty...
Will he gives us any proof? Of course not.

If they are still in the business, I imagine these two are somewhere in Wyoming driving cross state with a DAT recorder and a microphone gathering up all the latest cattle and dirt industry news.

[Pondering Aloud]

I don't doubt that both are gainfully employed and working very dilligently at some television station at this very moment. Didn't both quit the station after working there less than a year? It's a very low market station, so for them to apply for a new job somewhere else, they certainly couldn't do any worse as beginners, and probably a lot better. They probably wouldn't want to put down the Scottsbluff station as work experience. At the new job they simply use a middle name and work hard and never look back. That's not difficult to believe.

[NotImpressed]

I don't doubt that both are gainfully employed and working very dilligently at some television station at this very moment. Didn't both quit the station after working there less than a year? It's a very low market station, so for them to apply for a new job somewhere else, they certainly couldn't do any worse as beginners, and probably a lot better. They probably wouldn't want to put down the Scottsbluff station as work experience. At the new job they simply use a middle name and work hard and never look back. That's not difficult to believe.

...yeah it is. Word travels fast in the News Director circle. Those two are far away from TV jobs.

[Pondering Aloud]

...yeah it is. Word travels fast in the News Director circle. Those two are far away from TV jobs.

You know, tv news isn't exactly nuclear fission or rocket science.

[Produce man]

You know, tv news isn't exactly nuclear fission or rocket science.True, but who, after hearing what they did, would hire them?

[Pondering Aloud]

If I knew about it, I'd question them about it and see if they were contrite. If I didn't know about it, and I think they could successfully withhold that information, it wouldn't matter.

[The Fedora]

do you wish them well?

[SamG]

OK, let's say they change their name and leave the station off their resume. They apply to a new station as having "no experience". Shouldn't a ND ask 'What were you doing for the year after school until now?' And assuming they "pad" their resume with some false job (even out of broadcast), should the ND call THAT location to see if they're good workers?

[Pondering Aloud]

OK, let's say they change their name and leave the station off their resume. They apply to a new station as having "no experience". Shouldn't a ND ask 'What were you doing for the year after school until now?'

Looking for work. Which considering they were working at KDUH and looking to move on quickly is absolutely true.

[Diggin' Bear]

All I gots to say is: Ron Brown is a friggin' genius! He's got all of you blathering about nothing more than two years after the fact, and you're still biting away.

Kudos, Ron. This set of characters is vastly superior to all those in the past.

[The Fedora]

who the hell is ron brown?

(and yeah, I know... but it's like a black hole)

[Speed Racer]

So what if it's not a crime? The idiots won't be hired in the business anywhere else. You're locked onto this "not a crime" BS, and that really doesn't matter.

It matters quite a great deal because these two young reporters had to spend their hard earned money to hire lawyers to defend their valuable reputations in their newfound profession.

You like to ask questions, but try to answer this one: Why did KDUH not sue the reporters in civil court in order to retrieve what they claimed was a huge monetary loss? Remember, KDUH claimed they lost $250,000 in file tape images! $250,000!

And not a person here spoke out against that outlandish, outrageous claim.

And what of that $3,250 KDUH received in "restitution"? Did KDUH in fact replace the "valuable" stock footage with that money? No they did not. Which of course goes to prove that the video was unnecessary. Which of course goes to prove that the video was worthless. Which of course goes to prove that no crime was committed.

And the fact that KDUH chose not to pursue the matter in civil court goes to prove that nothing these two young reporters did was actionable inside the hallowed halls of justice. If they had more funds between them at the time, I'm quite sure they would have chosen to fight the fallacious charges to the bitter end and eventually exonerate themselves and clear their records of any and all egregious suggestions that the two of them were in any way criminally mischievous.

These two young reporters have a story to tell and I hope that someday, and that the someday will come soon, they tell the tale well.

I can see Vanessa Hudgens in the female role of the movie version. And the male lead would then presumably go to Zac Efron. I wish them well.

[Marty McFly]

Ah yes... the story of two disgruntled reporters who erased some tv station's archive tapes.

I'm on pins and needles wondering which studio will pick up the rights to that summer blockbuster.

Please note the sarcasm!

[ewink]

I am so sorry, but I cannot help myself. Plus I am having fun here. :)

1) Why would you be upset if I erased all your rewritable media?
Yup. But I couldn't charge you with a crime.
First, that is not an answer. He asked you WHY you would be upset, not if you would. Since the rewritable media is made to be erased, much like the videotapes in question, we'd like to know why it would upset you if we erased it.

Also, a private citizen cannot charge someone with a crime, only the state can.

2) Do you or do you not think you should be allowed to go into WalMart or Blockbuster and erase their video tapes?
If WalMart or Blockbuster paid me to use their videotape on a daily basis and erase their videotapes for reuse, I'd have to say yes. But you're just being silly. I don't think WalMart or Blockbuster pays people to reuse video as KDUH did and currently does.
Actually, some of their videotape is erased and reused. Loss prevention reuses tape.

However, even if you were employed in that fashion, the tape is not yours. If you are given certain tapes to erase and reuse, fine. However if they keep tapes that they do not want reused, in a separate area, and everyone knows that they want to keep those tapes for whatever reason (the reason is 100% irrelevant), do you think you can erase them anyway?

3) Do you believe that downloading copyrighted music and video files should be illegal?
I plead the fifth.
What kind of bull**** answer is that? Do you think it should be illegal since there is no physical property being stolen? You cannot get in trouble or go to jail for an opinion.

4) If the tapes were actually meant to be erased, why weren't they erased following a newscast if they weren't going to be used again?
Videotape in general is an eraseable and reusable format. If KDUH truly did not want that video erased, simple preventative steps could have been taken, but were not.
Do you know this for a fact that the record inhibit tabs were not clicked into save mode? If so, source please.
Intellectual property can be valued - - if it has value. In order for the State to prove its case, it had to prove not just that tapes were erased, but that the contents of the tapes had actual value.
They did, or at least the two morons knew they could, otherwise they would have pled 'NOT GUILTY'.

The transcript of the preliminary hearing notes that KDUH's station manager admitted that he had no idea what was on any of the morgue tapes. The examples he gave, of footage he believed to be on the tapes, were shots of "cows in a field," "cornfields," and "Chadron State College" - - not exactly the Zapruder film.
The contents of the tapes are irrelevant. The content was the property of the station, not the morons.

KDUH had not made a claim to its insurance company for the tapes; it could describe no changes in the quality of its broadcasts based on the loss of the tapes; and five months after the tapes were erased, KDUH had not purchased another local station's stock footage which had been offered to KDUH.
Again, irrelevant. I had a car stereo stolen. I did not make an insurance claim, my life was not harmed by the fact it was stolen, but that does not change the fact that it was stolen.

These are signs that the claimed value of the tapes was grossly overblown. KDUH's first claimed estimate of the value of the tapes was over $250,000. Then $21,000 then $3,250.

Sounds like they were pulling numbers out of a hat, doesn't it?
This sounds familiar... Oh yes, you've said this already about 7 or 8 times. None of this is relevant to the point I am making.

And what of that $3,250 KDUH recieved in "restitution"? Did KDUH in fact replace the "valuable" stock footage with that money? No they did not. Which of course goes to prove that the video was unnecessary. Which of course goes to prove that the video was worthless. Which of course goes to prove that no crime was committed.
Irrelevant. Does not change the fact that property was destroyed.

Those tapes were kept and used in a manner that suggested no value. [Compare these tapes with archived footage on older tapes which KDUH kept in a locked safe in the basement, which were not erased.]
Irrelevant. Does not change the fact that property was destroyed.

And of course we all recognize the irrefutable fact that videotape was made to be erased and reused.
Irrelevant. Does not change the fact that property was destroyed.

The fact of the matter is that at least 80% of the morgue footage had never been used (and perhaps much more than 80%); no one knew how many times any one, much less each, of the 92 tapes had been accessed and used before erasure; as much as 75% of the morgue footage was repeated duplications of the remaining 25%; and that even though KDUH was understaffed, it was actually paying less overtime to reporters as of the date of the preliminary hearing than back when it was fully staffed and had morgue footage. The station manager could not say whether any overtime at all had been allocated for the specific purpose of replacing any morgue footage.

Or whether that morgue footage was replaced.
Irrelevant. Does not change the fact that property was destroyed.

Conviction for criminal mischief requires proof that the property that is "damaged" actually had value before its "damage." If the property was treated as garbage by its owners to begin with, then its damage does not constitute a crime.
Then why did the morons plead no contest instead of NOT GUILTY?

None of your arguments dispute the fact that station property was destroyed. Seems like your biggest beef is with the fact that you had to pay so much in restitution. Maybe you should have pled NOT GUILTY and fought it.

[Speed Racer]

None of your arguments dispute the fact that station property was destroyed.

Nothing was destroyed. Who said anything about destruction? Not KDUH. Not the legal system. Just you, in your tiny imaginative little mind.

The videotapes remain intact and very much ready for reuse to this very day. Conviction for felony criminal mischief requires proof that the property actually had value before its alleged "damage." If the property was treated as garbage by its owners to begin with, then its "damage" does not constitute a felony. It does not even constitute a misdemeanor crime, the charge to which the reporters eventually pleaded no contest in order to save themselves tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

[Mr. Pratfall]

I'm on pins and needles wondering which studio will pick up the rights to that summer blockbuster.

Apparently, it will air on the Disney Channel.

[JoinUsForCake]

Looking for work. Which considering they were working at KDUH and looking to move on quickly is absolutely true.
Hmmm.

Pondering Aloud <-----> Sir Speedy?

[ewink]

:doh::thumbsup:

Nothing was destroyed. Who said anything about destruction? Not KDUH. Not the legal system. Just you, in your tiny imaginative little mind.

The videotapes remain intact and very much ready for reuse to this very day. Conviction for felony criminal mischief requires proof that the property actually had value before its alleged "damage." If the property was treated as garbage by its owners to begin with, then its "damage" does not constitute a felony. It does not even constitute a misdemeanor crime, the charge to which the reporters eventually pleaded no contest in order to save themselves tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
The intellectual property on the tapes was destroyed.

If the property was garbage, it would have been in a garbage can.

Seems like you should have had an easy case though, you could have defended yourself for free, or ask for a public defender.

You lose. I win. :rockon:

BTW: Nebraska law states about Felony Criminal Mischief: A person commits criminal mischief if they: Damage property of another intentionally or recklessly; or Intentionally tamper with property of another so as to endanger person or property; or Intentionally or maliciously cause another to suffer pecuniary loss by deception or threat. Criminal mischief is a felony if the actor intentionally caused pecuniary loss in excess of $300, or substantial interruption or impairment of public communication, transportation, supply of water, gas or power, or other public services. Criminal mischief is a misdemeanor if the actor intentionally causes pecuniary loss less than $300.

You could easily argue that there was at least $300 in value to what was destroyed based solely on how much it cost to produce the intellectual property that was destroyed by you and your friend.

Look, I win some more!

[Mr. Pratfall]

#422: Meredith Viera was the producers' first choice to play Hoss on "Bonanza."

[ewink]

#422: Meredith Viera was the producers' first choice to play Hoss on "Bonanza."
Am I the only one who would like to see her naked?

[Speed Racer]

The intellectual property on the tapes was destroyed.

See how quickly you went from "destroyed" to "damaged"?

The two words have different meanings. You can look it up, if you're suddenly inclined.

But the tapes were not even damaged. They are intact to this day and ready for reuse, as is the manufacturer's intent. There was nothing of value on the tapes.

Intellectual property can be valued - - if it has value. In order for the State to prove its case, it had to prove not just that tapes were erased, but that the contents of the tapes had actual value.

The transcript of the preliminary hearing notes that KDUH's station manager admitted that he had no idea what was on any of the morgue tapes. The examples he gave, of footage he believed to be on the tapes, were shots of "cows in a field," "cornfields," and "Chadron State College" - - not exactly the Zapruder film. KDUH had not made a claim to its insurance company for the tapes; it could describe no changes in the quality of its broadcasts based on the loss of the tapes; and five months after the tapes were erased, KDUH had not purchased another local station's stock footage which had been offered to KDUH.

These are signs that the claimed value of the tapes was grossly overblown. KDUH's first claimed estimate of the value of the tapes was over $250,000. Then refigured it to be, oh, $21,000 then finally, at least $3,250.

You're willing to argue that the file video was worth $300. Sounds like everybody is just pulling numbers out of a hat, (or somewhere else) doesn't it? It doesn't work like that in a courtroom. You have to justify those wildly varied numbers.

And what of that $3,250 KDUH recieved as payment or "restitution"? Did KDUH in fact replace the "valuable" stock footage with that money? No they did not. Which of course goes to prove that the video was unnecessary to their news operation. Which of course goes to prove that the video of cows in a field was completely worthless. Which of course goes to prove that no crime was committed.

Those tapes were kept and used in a manner that suggested no value. [Compare these tapes with archived footage on older tapes which KDUH kept in a locked safe in the basement, which were not erased.]

The fact of the matter is that at least 80% of the morgue footage had never been used (and perhaps much more than 80%); no one knew how many times any one, much less each, of the 92 tapes had been accessed and used before erasure; as much as 75% of the morgue footage was repeated duplications of the remaining 25%; and that even though KDUH was understaffed, it was actually paying less overtime to reporters as of the date of the preliminary hearing than back when it was fully staffed and had morgue footage. The station manager could not say whether any overtime at all had been allocated for the specific purpose of replacing any morgue footage. Or whether that morgue footage was replaced.

Conviction for criminal mischief requires proof that the property that is "damaged" actually had value before its "damage." If the property was treated as garbage by its owners to begin with, then its damage does not constitute a crime.

[Produce man]

So what have you been up to since sinking your careers?

[JoinUsForCake]

Conviction for criminal mischief requires proof that the property that is "damaged" actually had value before its "damage."
OR the accused plea guilty in court. Which they did.
http://i177.photobucket.com/albums/w238/TX1138/epic_fail.jpg

[Speed Racer]

OR the accused plea guilty in court. Which they did.
Which they did NOT.

Nolo contendere is a legal term that comes from the Latin for "I do not wish to contest." It is also referred to as a plea of "No Contest."

It is a plea where the defendant neither admits nor disputes a charge, serving as an alternative to a pleading of guilty or not guilty.

A nolo contendere plea has the same immediate effects as a plea of guilty, but may have different residual effects or consequences in future actions. For instance, a conviction arising from a nolo plea is subject to any and all penalties, fines, and forfeitures of a conviction from a guilty plea in the same case, and can be considered as an aggravating factor in future criminal actions. However, unlike a guilty plea, a nolo contendere conviction typically may not be used to establish either negligence per se, malice, or whether the acts were committed at all in later civil proceedings related to the same set of facts as the criminal prosecution.

[ewink]

See how quickly you went from "destroyed" to "damaged"?

The two words have different meanings. You can look it up, if you're suddenly inclined.

Dude, WTF are you smoking? I said destroyed.
http://www.erinwinking.com/bloggpx/speedymoron.jpg

But the tapes were not even damaged. They are intact to this day and ready for reuse, as is the manufacturer's intent. There was nothing of value on the tapes.
Says you.

The have a minimum value of how much it cost KDUH to produce the intellectual property on the tape. Even if you give something away for free, it still has a cost to manufacture. Everything has value. Everything.

Some crap that was copy and pasted from a previous post...
:doh:

You're willing to argue that the file video was worth $300. Sounds like everybody is just pulling numbers out of a hat, (or somewhere else) doesn't it? It doesn't work like that in a courtroom. You have to justify those wildly varied numbers.
What was your salary there? And how many stories did you work on? We can take your salary/number of stories = cost to manufacture per story.

Was their a photographer involved too? We'd have to do the same and add that price in. I bet you that when all is said and done we can come up with an amount that is >$300.

And what of that $3,250 KDUH recieved as payment or "restitution"? Did KDUH in fact replace the "valuable" stock footage with that money? No they did not. Which of course goes to prove that the video was unnecessary to their news operation. Which of course goes to prove that the video of cows in a field was completely worthless. Which of course goes to prove that no crime was committed.
Do you have proof of this? Do you know for a fact that another 'cow in a field' VO was not shot? Do you know for a fact that the $3,250 was not placed into payroll to pay for whoever is having to go out and shoot new video instead of just pulling file? If you do, please cite your source. Thanks.

And I already proved the video has worth, regardless of how mundane it is.

More cut and paste crap...

Admit I have beaten you. Admit it.

[Speed Racer]

Dude, WTF are you smoking? I said destroyed.

And you offered legal justification for "damaged" which you claimed to be one and the same, which they are not. Destroyed has one meaning. Damaged has another. The tapes were neither destroyed nor damaged. The images were erased but the images held no monetary value. You're so ignorant you don't even know when you've done something supremely stupid. But don't worry. I'm here to point it out. Don't thank me; it's a public service, and my pleasure.

[ewink]

Oh... I see now. You are referencing the Nebraska law on Felony Criminal Mischief that I posted. At least that is what I assume because I can't find where else I even used the word damage.

First, that is the way the law is phrased. Second, you have to damage something in order to destroy it. When you erased the tapes, you damaged the intellectual property on it so badly it was destroyed.

If I take a hard drive and put it on a bulk eraser, I have not hurt the drive but I have damaged the files contained on the drive beyond repair. I have destroyed them.

A tornado comes through and causes so much damage to a house, the house is destroyed.

You can have damage without destruction, but you cannot have destruction without damage.

[SamG]

Another question speedyfastguy REFUSES to answer...

WHY did the tapes need "cleaned"?

Also, the criminal charges are a moot point. I don't care if they go to jail, pay a fine, or get slapped by a wet noodle. They (at best) INTENTIONALLY made work more difficult for their coworkers and future KDUH employees.

[MyracleMan]

Am I the only one who would like to see her naked?

Nope! She's a hot mama!

[NotImpressed]

Admit I have beaten you. Admit it.

He doesn't have to : the verdict already did beat him.

[Speed Racer]

WHY did the tapes need "cleaned"?
It's a stupid question. I don't know that the tapes needed to be cleaned, but it certainly didn't hurt the tapes to clean them by erasing the images from them. Unlike film, videotape was made to be erased and reused.

[SamG]

It's a stupid question. I don't know that the tapes needed to be cleaned, but it certainly didn't hurt the tapes to clean them by erasing the images from them. Unlike film, videotape was made to be erased and reused.
It wouldn't hurt the windows or the news cars to be cleaned either. Why didn't the idiots "clean" them? Or are you saying the reason WHY the idiots pulled this stupid stunt doesn't matter?

Admit it... the idiots INTENTIONALLY made life harder on KDUH current (actually past) and future employees.