BBC and FACT Shut Down Doctor Who Fansite 186
An anonymous reader writes with this report from Torrentfreak, excerpting: In just a few hours time the brand new season of Doctor Who will premiere, kicking off with the first episode 'Deep Breath'. There's been a huge build up in the media, but for fans who prefer to socialize and obtain news via a dedicated community, today brings bad news. Doctor Who Media (DWM) was a site created in 2010 and during the ensuing four and a half years it amassed around 25,000 dedicated members. A source close to the site told TF that since nothing like it existed officially, DWM's core focus was to provide a central location and community for everything in the 'Whoniverse,' from reconstructions of missing episodes to the latest episodes, and whatever lay between. But yesterday, following a visit by representatives from the BBC and Federation Against Copyright Theft, the site's operator took the decision to shut down the site for good.
So much for fair use (Score:1)
Title says it all.
Re: (Score:1)
The UK has no fair use provision in it's copyright law.
Re:So much for fair use (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:1)
Fair Dealing is like fair use, but much more restrictive.
Re: (Score:2)
Fair Dealing is like fair use, but much more restrictive.
Maybe so, but even under the US Fair Use doctrine, I don't think you can offer full episodes of a TV show without permission of the copyright holder.
Re: (Score:2)
Irrelevant. The BBC is not governed by American law. (Hint : look at what the first "B" stands for.)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if it did, the "fair use" arguement is always a gamble. There's a good chance you'll lose, even if you think it's clearly fair use, because there's not good definition of what it means, so the judge has to decide how he feels.
Re: (Score:3)
Understanding fair use [copyrightservice.co.uk]
The UK does have 'Fair Use', but the rules are vague and generally not as good as the US's more legally fleshed out rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is sad, because the US could do a lot better.
Re: (Score:2)
US's more legally fleshed out rules.
Time to read Fairest of them all and other fairy tales of fair use [duke.edu]?
They may seem fleshed out, but prevailing on the rules can be a bit of crapshoot.
Don't worry (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
It would have also avoided most of its audience.
Daleks did it? (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm.. Sounded something like this?
EX-TER-MI-NATE!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I can just imagine the Daleks trundling into the office screaming "D-C-M-A!"
Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, is this a case of major fansite being shutdown for using a more copyrighted material than the BBC was prepared to stomach (in which case where was the friendly letter asking them to "tone it down a bit, please"), a copyright infringement portal being shuttered for hosting/linking to aired episodes and other content, some kind of trademark issue, or just a domain grab by the BBC ("doctorwhomedia.co.uk" is a fairly nice domain name, afterall)?
Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (Score:5, Informative)
They were hosting full episodes. If the guy had taken them down, the forum could have gone on, but people mostly went there for the episodes, so that would have killed the site.
Also, 25000 users is "huge"?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Thank you for giving more information.
Hey Slashdot Editors and posters. Information like this would have been nice to know in the summary. Otherwise it make it sounds like a fan site was shut down for having information about a show.
Get your fucking act together and stop trying to feed into FUD.
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for giving more information.
Hey Slashdot Editors and posters. Information like this would have been nice to know in the summary. Otherwise it make it sounds like a fan site was shut down for having information about a show.
Get your fucking act together and stop trying to feed into FUD.
From the summary:
DWM's core focus was to provide a central location and community for everything in the 'Whoniverse,' from reconstructions of missing episodes to the latest episodes, and whatever lay between.
They d
Re: (Score:1)
They were hosting full episodes. If the guy had taken them down, the forum could have gone on, but people mostly went there for the episodes, so that would have killed the site.
Also, 25000 users is "huge"?
I am a little confused; Isn't all material on the BBC public property in Britain since it's paid for with taxes?
Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (Score:5, Insightful)
The BBC itself is publicly owned, so in that sense, it is public property, but we don't have the right to individual assets any more than a shareholder in Sony can start making copies of Spiderman DVDs.
Also it's paid for by a licence fee rather than taxes. You can call them taxes if you like, but it doesn't go into or come out of central taxation.
Re: (Score:1)
No, you see, this would now be classed as second generation content, which is content not being broadcast, so can be sold.
See, there is a huge pickle right there in that they aren't allowed to SELL their content online, yet they are still allowed to sell DVDs and the like. What?
Fuck the Beeb. BBC should be allowed to sell access to stuff through the iPlayer. Period. There should be a period of, say, 1-6 months where it is freely available on iPlayer, then it goes "in to the archives", available for purc
Re: (Score:2)
BBC original series tend to stay on iPlayer for long enough. It's the series that are not BBC original that tend to stay shortest.
Re: (Score:2)
You are ignoring the fact that it was UK tax-payers money that paid for everything Dr Who so it is a complete piss take that we don't have access to this for free.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (Score:5, Interesting)
But for their own reasons the UK parliament has resisted such moves as they see the overriding importance of keeping the BBC free from political influence.
Yet, as a Brit you can't avoid being a taxpayer but you can most certainly avoid being a licence payer.
Re: (Score:2)
BBC is supported by a tax on TV sets, not from the general fund, the legal theory being that people without TV should not have to pay for BBC. So the UK has a massive bureaucracy just to collect TV tax, including an army of special police who roam house to house with electronic-detection vans to look for TV sets that do not pay the tax.
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no they dont - the detector vans have been a long running myth, they never existed.
Re: Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (Score:1)
So much a myth that the inspectors will trespass, break into gardens and peer into kids windows to prove you're watching tv illegally - YouTube is filled with vids of people arguing with them.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Drop the bullshit please.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no special tax on television sets. There is no bureaucracy to collect any such tax nor an army of any special police. If you wish to watch or record live television as it is broadcast you are legally required to purchase a license. As I do neither, I am not required to, nor do I have, a license.
Re: (Score:2)
The details on your nonexistent tax:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/c... [tvlicensing.co.uk]
Details on those nonexistent detector vans, with pic and history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
If you read the Wiki article, the vans referenced were used to detect over-the-air analog TVs. No details on any such digital ttv detection.
Choice (Score:2)
I'm a UK citizen who pays taxes. I do not pay for a television license because I am not required to.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well FWIW you do in part pay for the BBC - they receive a sizeable stipend from general taxation in addition to the monies raised through the license fee.
Re: (Score:3)
Stolen scripts and rushes (Score:2)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/ente... [bbc.co.uk]
Re: (Score:2)
If BBC iPlayer were to have the old episodes available, rather than its usual habit of removing programmes N days after broadcast, then there would be no incentive for fan and torrent sites to 'pirate' them.
Re: (Score:2)
...and now its up to PirateBay to "host" them.
All they have done is instantly alienate (hahaha!) 25k dedicated rabid fans.
Re: (Score:1)
It's after 50 calendar years. So the very first Doctor Who serial from 1963 and a couple episodes of the second (The Daleks) serial are public domain, and at the end of this year all the episodes from 1964 will be public domain.
I think this fact of inevitability losing control of Doctor Who scared the BBC into this action.
Re: (Score:1)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140614075215/http://doctorwhomedia.co.uk/
It was a nice site but it does look like they were hosting the episdoes. Which I still think is fine myself but legal and business teams usually seem to disagree.
Should have kept the domain name (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears there was some negotiation over the shutdown and perhaps giving up the domain name was done in order to secure the user database:
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
And what are you going to do, you keyboard revolutionnaire? Fight? I bet you would crap your pants and plead to have mercy on you. You would probably offer sexual favours to them.
We don't need to hear what happened to you, okay?
Re: (Score:2)
In short he was intimidated and caved in, even though he didn't have to. In fact what they did is called extortion, and actually is a crime.
Re: (Score:2)
Your statement is true, but you don't understand what it means.
Which is fine, because as you said, nobody's going to jail anyway. The judge orders you to pay, if you don't owe the money you don't pay, nothing happens. End of story. (At least here in the US. I don't know if England has debtor's prison still, but strongly doubt it.)
Re: (Score:2)
You'd certainly think there are no debtors' prisons in the US any more, but:
http://www.foxnews.com/politic... [foxnews.com]
You do have to owe money to the court system, not to a private party, to get sucked into this...I think.
[Fox New link chosen to head of skepticism of lefty-er sources.]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In the U.S., I would argue it's more because victims aren't familiar with the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and the (rather effective) remedies available to them at no cost. Debt collection companies do hinky shit all the time, but a lot of it is trivial to shut down if you're aware of what your options are instead of just taking the collector at the
Regrets (Score:2)
I suspect those in charge of the Dr Who franchise will end up wishing they could go back in time and reverse this stupid decision.. Especially once they see that the extermination order was signed by "The Master"...
Re: (Score:1)
I suspect those in charge of the Dr Who franchise will end up wishing they could go back in time and reverse this stupid decision.. Especially once they see that the extermination order was signed by "The Master"...
Nevermind, if the site really was actually hosting full episodes then it really was only a matter of time before they were taken down. Though I am a little confused; Isn't all material on the BBC public property in Britain since it's paid for with taxes?
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think so wouldn't you, but no, its not, and the BBC is VERY cagey about rights management.
Re: (Score:1)
That' part is deliberate. If they never are willing to say what is allowed, they can claim that anything is forbidden, at whatever time ant at whatever whim moves them. It's typical BBC bureaucracy. They *refuse* to actually write standards and procedures, they just follow them like little drone bees. It gives *enormous* power to middle management.
See "Brazil" to get a good sense of how this works out. I understood the movie much, much better after a year working for the BBC.
Re: (Score:2)
Public property doesn't mean you get to do what ever you want with it any more than buying a few share in Microsoft would entitle you to demand the access to Windows source code.
It is a license fee. You get a license to watch telly, not to own all the media.
Here is the site (Score:3)
http://doctorwhomedia.co.uk/ [doctorwhomedia.co.uk] -- however, the domain is being transferred so the content might not stay there for long. At the time of writing (23 Aug 16.45 BST) there is roughly the story above and some chats at http://doctorwhomedia.chatango.com/ [chatango.com], and whois shows the domain still owned byJonathan Carlyle .
No real indication why it was taken down ... talking about Dr Who cannot be a problem. Was there copyrighted material hosted ?
Something's not right here... (Score:2)
Really, if he really wasn't doing anything illegal in the first place, I can't see any reason he should have caved in on this... and this is in the UK, where it's my understanding that if you try to bring someone to court and lose, then you have to pay their costs, which I imagine exists to discourage overly subjective, baseless, or slapp-like lawsuits.
The fact th
Something's not right here... (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that he yielded on this suggests to me that he was aware that a search warrant would find something on his computer(s) that shouldn't have been there in the first place. It's unfortunate the site is gone, but we're not actually seeing the whole story here. Sadly, because of how things have already went, we probably never will.
We are seeing the whole story here, /. is just choosing not to cover it adequately. The site was hosting full episodes, which was the main reason anyone visited it. This isn't the BBC using overreaching copyright laws to leverage control over its brand, it's the BBC using the reasonable end of copyright law to protect its right to control the distribution of content.
Shot themselves in the foot there (Score:1)
You know, occasionally I start to feel a bit guilty about pirating TV shows. So it's great when the copyright owners come along and shoot themselves in the foot like this, and remind me why I really shouldn't give a fuck. I mean, that site's users are some of the most loyal fans of your fucking show. They are the people most likely to spend money on merchandise, and to buy box-sets, and to go to show-related events. That site was doing nothing except positives for the Doctor Who show. If they wanted to exer
Shot themselves in the foot there (Score:1, Informative)
That site was doing nothing except positives for the Doctor Who show. If they wanted to exercise more control over their brand, they could have at least tried to work with the site first, or even take it over and let the same people continue to run the site under their oversight. Fuckwits.
From the summary:
DWM's core focus was to provide a central location and community for everything in the 'Whoniverse,' from reconstructions of missing episodes to the latest episodes, and whatever lay between.
The purpose o
Re: Shot themselves in the foot there (Score:1)
Anyone sitting through an entire episode of The Sonic Screwdriver Show is a loyal viewer. If people use their own bandwidth to remain loyal they should be praised. Or sectioned.
They messed with me once too... apk (Score:1)
I did a screensaver that had the "new series" (2005 on 'Rose' one) intro as an .avi that played back from RAM & had some pretty neat/unique tech in it by embedding that .avi into the .exe as a resource, extracting it directly to RAM & playing it back... was a HUGE hit, even with the site mod (who often gave me guff).
That "all said & aside": I offered it DIRECTLY to the BBC, no charge, & it's 'engine' was REPLACEABLE (meaning others series' of theirs could do it, since I offered the code
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
127.0.0.1 bbc.co.uk
Done
Re: (Score:2)
in the run-up to the new season they ran a show that specifically touted the input from fans, including fan-produced content like episodes and trailers. The new season's opening sequence was created by a fan that they discovered from a demo opening sequence he posted on the internet. Seems they are at least a bit schizophrenic about such things.
You know what this means... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Never seen a Dr Who (Score:1)
That's how you troll right there.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This copywrite shit is getting pathetic (Score:3, Insightful)
Now you can't even organize a group to talk about something that interests you, if you dont own the rights to the topic of discussion!?
From the summary:
DWM's core focus was to provide a central location and community for everything in the 'Whoniverse,' from reconstructions of missing episodes to the latest episodes, and whatever lay between.
The purpose of the site was not to let fans discuss their favourite episodes, it was to store and distribute copyrighted material without licence. This is precisely wha
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
"The purpose of the site was not to let fans discuss their favourite episodes, it was to store and distribute copyrighted material without licence. This is precisely what copyright laws were designed to tackle. This isn't news, this isn't relevant to any serious discussion about copyright reform, this is the system working as intended."
You are completely full of shit and I would like to know why you feel it is okay to come in here and just lie? They did not "store and distribute copyrighted material without
Re: (Score:2)
"The purpose of the site was not to let fans discuss their favourite episodes, it was to store and distribute copyrighted material without licence. This is precisely what copyright laws were designed to tackle. This isn't news, this isn't relevant to any serious discussion about copyright reform, this is the system working as intended."
You are completely full of shit and I would like to know why you feel it is okay to come in here and just lie? They did not "store and distribute copyrighted material without licence".
I'm going to hazard a guess that they were hosting links to torrent files of the episodes. Which should be legal but for some insane reason isn't.
Re: (Score:3)
"The purpose of the site was not to let fans discuss their favourite episodes, it was to store and distribute copyrighted material without licence. This is precisely what copyright laws were designed to tackle. This isn't news, this isn't relevant to any serious discussion about copyright reform, this is the system working as intended."
You are completely full of shit and I would like to know why you feel it is okay to come in here and just lie? They did not "store and distribute copyrighted material without licence".
I'm going to hazard a guess that they were hosting links to torrent files of the episodes. Which should be legal but for some insane reason isn't.
In response to the announcement on their Facebook [facebook.com] users are lamenting that they can no longer use the site to stream full episodes of both new and classic Who. Clearly the site must have offered streams of full episodes for the users to be upset that they aren't there anymore.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they're 'missing' it implies the "video" (actually it would be film) isn't available.
Re:This copywrite shit is getting pathetic (Score:4, Insightful)
The methods I've seen have been mostly "slideshows" with audio tracks, and very rarely, someone recreating the video in an animated form.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure you weren't just watching YouTube with the HTML5 renderer?
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't speaking about the copyright issue. The question was "how were they reconstructed without the video?"
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Not sure about an older Doctor Who (Score:5, Funny)
Not to mention the fantastic Dune/Star Trek crossover. The best scenes are where Nurse Chapel seduces Baron Harkonnen (and much hilarity ensues) and Paul Atreided and Captain Kirk compare whether the Weirding way or the monkey kick are more effective. Best catchphrase "dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a Bene Tleilax facedancer."
Re: (Score:2)
I think there was a Magnum P.I./Simon & Simon cross over episode that was pretty good too.
Re:Your Official guide to the Jigaboo presidency! (Score:5, Insightful)
Reading at -1 is like having your soul sucked out and replaced by liquid nitrogen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can't. They erased bunch of them and likely some are gone forever because dumb.