BBC Wants Microsoft To Expose 'Doctor Who' Leaker (torrentfreak.com) 219
Last month, the BBC headed to court to track down the person who leaked an incomplete scene featuring Jodie Whittaker's Thirteenth Doctor. New court documents suggest that the British broadcaster has yet to find the perpetrator, and is hoping Microsoft can help. At a federal court in Washington, the BBC requested a DMCA subpoena targeted at a OneDriver user who shared the infringing material online late June. TorrentFreak reports: In an effort to track down the source of the leak the BBC has taken the matter to the U.S. courts. Last month it obtained a DMCA subpoena from a California federal court, ordering the forum tool Tapatalk to identify the source of an infringing post. Whether this resulted in any useful information is unknown, but a few days ago it became clear that BBC is still investigating the matter. In a separate effort, BBC Studios have filed a request for a DMCA subpoena at a Federal court in Washington. This time it's directed at Microsoft. According to the BBC, a user of Microsoft's OneDrive stored and shared a copy of the leaked file, titled "IMG_ l563.TRIM.MOV."
"The infringing material includes, without limitation, an unauthorized copy of copyrighted video content from Season 11, Episode 1 of Doctor Who, for which BBC Worldwide Limited t/a BBC Studios (Distribution) is the exclusive licensee," the BBC writes. According to the BBC, the footage in question was stolen from the studio. Through the subpoena, the company hopes to find out more about the source of this leak, to prevent similar situations going forward. It asks Microsoft to hand over any relevant information that can help to identify the account holder who uploaded the video, which was added to OneDrive back in June. This includes "any name, account name, address, telephone number, email address, birth date, profile photo, device information, browser information, location information, information from others (e.g., Facebook or Google+) and time posted."
"The infringing material includes, without limitation, an unauthorized copy of copyrighted video content from Season 11, Episode 1 of Doctor Who, for which BBC Worldwide Limited t/a BBC Studios (Distribution) is the exclusive licensee," the BBC writes. According to the BBC, the footage in question was stolen from the studio. Through the subpoena, the company hopes to find out more about the source of this leak, to prevent similar situations going forward. It asks Microsoft to hand over any relevant information that can help to identify the account holder who uploaded the video, which was added to OneDrive back in June. This includes "any name, account name, address, telephone number, email address, birth date, profile photo, device information, browser information, location information, information from others (e.g., Facebook or Google+) and time posted."
Can I really hate Bill Clinton now? (Score:5, Funny)
Bill Clinton gave us both Hillary and the DMCA.
Ouch.
Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now? (Score:4, Informative)
You've been allowed to hate Bill Clinton for decades now, your thoughts, such as they are, are free.
Wouldn't have been any different under Dukaksis or Tsongas though*, the law was passed by bipartisan margins in the House and with unanimous consent in the Senate, and it hasn't been significantly changed in any way since despite decades of opportunity.
The corporations got what they wanted from WIPO. They had enough politicians in their pocket across the world that blaming Bill Clinton is like blaming Mrs. O'Leary's cow.
(*maybe Perot, but who knows what that nut job would have done? It isn't like he wouldn't kowtow to his corporate masters himself.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish any of that was surprising.
It's like the Patriot Act. Politicians always use a crisis (manufactured or not) to rip away or freedoms in the guise of protecting us.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Properly applied, the DMCA could actually give us all a means of protecting our personal information. But, who cares. Everyone's so focused on hating it
that they can't bother thinking of ways to leverage it.
LOL.
Properly applied, fire is a wonderful tool.
That doesn't mean sitting a 3-year-old on top of a case of dynamite and handing him a fucking flamethrower is a good idea.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It depends. Is it a "Not A Flamethrower" by The Boring Company?
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't mean sitting a 3-year-old on top of a case of dynamite and handing him a fucking flamethrower is a good idea.
Depends on what your end game is. If your hoping the 3 year old will set off the dynamite by setting it on fire, then your out of luck. Dynamite doesn't explode when burnt, but it does burn very nicely. So if you want to have a really nice fire then, there you go.
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA tended to put too much responsibility on the content storage company then the individual copyright violator.
Yes it is easier to target the storage company vs the violator. But it doesn't solve the problem, of the violation, and it just shifts where they go.
Re: (Score:2)
But it doesn't solve the problem, of the violation, and it just shifts where they go.
That's a common criticism, but I think it misses some important points. For one thing, the damage caused by copyright infringement is related to the scale of the infringement. When everyone used to copy cassette tapes and swap them at school, it was time-consuming to make those copies and they didn't spread very fast. In the online era, one popular source can rapidly distribute an infringing work to many more people. Moreover, those popular sources are often monetising their behaviour. It doesn't seem unrea
Re: (Score:2)
>The more rational alternative is that corporations would be responsible for pursuing "pirates" in civil court.
The internet wouldn't and couldn't exist with your rule. No ISP would be willing to shoulder that burden (i.e., contributory/vicarious infringement) without the DMCA's liability shields. And there was no way you'd ever get those shields without notice-and-takedown.
Good luck with that (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's sad that they didn't think a show about a woman TimeLord would be good enough to stand on its own. Instead, they had to transgender the Doctor into a woman to try to keep the old fans plus the news ones that would be thrilled with this.
I don't think anyone is saying the mere presence of a woman is political and subversive but it says a lot about you that you think that is the issue.
I enjoy Blindspot, Buffy, Dollhouse, Alias, Fringe, the 100 etc. Most shows nowadays have a strong female lead.
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Insightful)
They were trying to revamp the show because it was getting stale. The standard method for doing that is to change showrunner and writing team (check) and introduce some new elements (check).
What's strange is why it's such a big deal to people. The Doctor is an alien, largely sexless and uninterested in relationships... The biggest change will be how other people react to her, rather than anything she does I think.
It's not even a new idea, we had all this decades ago in Star Trek with Trill characters. And they often did focus on their relationships. Maybe it's because the internet was less of a thing back then, but I don't remember the backlash against it at the time. It was just an interesting idea to be explored. The spin off idea is probably a non-starter just because the BBC doesn't have the money and the main series is in need to saving anyway.
Perhaps you can explain, what is lost or lessened by having a female doctor?
Re:Good luck with that (Score:4, Funny)
I don't get why you don't find it strange and how you can't see the political angle of it. It wasn't until the master changed to a woman that changing of sex was even a possibility. That is with 50 years plus of Doctor Who history. The idea that it's not a new simply because he is an alien is bogus. We were told he was a father. For a sexless species, you'd think they'd have a more gender neutral term or simply said he was a parent.
And if it's no big deal, then why would the characters in the show react any different to the Doctor as a woman than any other new Who?
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't get to hung up on language. Who knows what the Time Lord language is like, maybe there is no concept of gender or maybe the convention is to use whatever the current incarnation is.
More over, Who canon is contradictory and unclear. The writers do what they like, it's always been that way.
Being female could create a different dynamic with her companions, and with the people she meets. Through much of Earth's history women have played very different roles in society. This was addressed in the last
Re: (Score:2)
> It wasn't until the master changed to a woman that changing of sex was even a possibility.
Wrong.
http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/T... [wikia.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Rowan Atkinson regenerating into Joanna Lumley. Though this was done as a joke, the idea was definitely out there for a few decades.
The characters may react differently to the Doctor as a woman because most of the characters are human and grew up with preconceived notions.
Re: (Score:2)
It wasn't until the master changed to a woman that changing of sex was even a possibility.
Moffet had introduced the possiblity years ahead of that. The eleventh doctor checking to see if he was still male in 2011 after regenerating. Refering to another time lord who had been female in two regenerations in 2012. The Sisters of Karn saying they could make the doctor regenerate as female in 2013. Then the Master in 2014.
Re: (Score:2)
I do agree Moffett has been setting the stage for this throughout his tenure
Re: (Score:2)
It's not even a new idea, we had all this decades ago in Star Trek with Trill characters. And they often did focus on their relationships. Maybe it's because the internet was less of a thing back then, but I don't remember the backlash against it at the time.
It helped that Terry Farrell was both super hot and a decent actress. It also helped that it was an occasional side plot with not-incompetent writing, and that the male version of the character had not previously appeared in any Star Trek show, rather than being a replacement of the title character. Whether or not the BBC's writing will be competent remains to be seen.
Stargate SG-1 also had a species that body-swapped, more parasitic than symbiotic, but still the same concept. The Goa'uld apparently had
Re: (Score:2)
It's funny, I was hopeful when Moffat took over but he turned out to be worse than Davies. As you say, always seeming to build towards something that never came.
Re: (Score:2)
I was hoping for the same. I think he pulled it off with Smith who I honestly thought I was going to hate. There were a few clunkers but that's to be expected. Overall, the one I was least excited for became my favorite.
It's funny because I was looking forward to the doctor that replaced him but I could barely finish his first series.
It's possible you are correct and it got stale. I found it to dreary and felt it lost its fun factor. I like gritty shows and doctor who always seem to find that good ba
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You didn't like Buffy or Fringe?
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be just as upset if they changed Buffy to a guy after she came back from the dead. Even if the excuse was "the story was stale with a woman in that role."
Re: (Score:2)
Please, point me to the part of Dr Who lore that says upon regeneration, the doctor must be male?
It's more interesting that you find the mere presence of a woman on your screen to be such a political and subversive act... How do you make the magic box go bright using the pointy-clicker?
I believe that Dr. Who is one of the few shows which CAN get away with switching the gender of the lead star at it being acceptable to canon.
Now, I do hope the doctor was chosen because she was perceived by Chibnal to be the best person for the job, and not only for being a woman. Jodie Whittaker is certainly a talented actress and I'm sure she can pull it off. As long as the show isn't all about feminism and female empowerment nothing has changed- you just have a talented female reprising the role that h
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the show isn't all about feminism and female empowerment nothing has changed- you just have a talented female reprising the role that had been filled by an annoying Scottish man most recently.
The likelihood of this happening is practically zero. There will be numerous occasions where the Doctor will lament people not taking her seriously because "muh soggy knees" and every other "strong female protagonist" trope they lifted straight out of TV Tropes. Expect some "jokes" about "you wouldn't hit a woman", "I can do anything you can do but better", and all the other bullshit we've been subjected to since the 70s. I'll bet they even work a mansplaining line in at least once.
There is just no way t
Re: (Score:2)
As long as the show isn't all about feminism and female empowerment nothing has changed- you just have a talented female reprising the role that had been filled by an annoying Scottish man most recently.
The likelihood of this happening is practically zero. There will be numerous occasions where the Doctor will lament people not taking her seriously because "muh soggy knees" and every other "strong female protagonist" trope they lifted straight out of TV Tropes. Expect some "jokes" about "you wouldn't hit a woman", "I can do anything you can do but better", and all the other bullshit we've been subjected to since the 70s. I'll bet they even work a mansplaining line in at least once.
There is just no way this show won't be a mess self-indulgent feminist/progressive bullshit. It largely was, already, and having muh strong female lead will just give them every excuse to turn it up to 11.
Let's wait until they show the first episode before we write the script for them. I'm sure there will be some light-hearted jokes on the matter, for sure; and there's nothing wrong with that. They've already had jokes at the expense of both England and Scotland with their Scottish actors on-board. Nothing to offend anyone. If they turn it into a "let's bash men" show then we have a reason to complain, but so far I have no evidence that they have, so there's nothing for anyone to complain about.
Re: (Score:2)
YuriKlastalov BTFO. How will he ever recover?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Interesting)
If it were not done for political reasons, why do it now? Why wasn't it done between 2005 and 2012?
Why not do it now? Why is 2005-2012 somehow better than now? There is nothing in Dr. Who lore which says a Time Lord male cannot regenerate into a female (in fact, quite the opposite given The Master/Missy). So...aside from her being a woman, exactly what problem do you have with this?
Did you miss the cultural shift where the public widely reject the "progressive" ideology of the elite?
Casting actresses in a show is a "progressive ideology of the elite"? Perhaps in the 1700s, but it hasn't been for quite some time. You should look into making the leap into the 20th century. Being only 100 years behind the rest of us seems as if it would be an improvement for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe in the past it was politics that insisted a show's lead must always be a man?
Re:Good luck with that (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do you automatically assume that a female doctor added to the show was there to be politically correct? ..., Warrior, Resentful, Vengeful, Goofball, and Unsure.
I mean we had only two words from her official debut. In terms of narrative purposes We already had 12 (or is it 13) Changes in actors that bring a different take to the character the Doctor.
Grumpy, Hobo, Super Spy, Bohemian, Jock, Egotist, Strategist,
Lately narrative can write Female Hero's who are not so stereotypical and more general human. Where the gender is who they are, but not what guides the stories.
Even a decade ago, it would had been politically correct to make a female doctor. But I doubt they would had been able to write a good one, with companions such as Rose and Martha showing the pitfalls in popular narrative of the time. However I think they are getting much better now, and can keep a compelling narrative with a female doctor now.
Re: (Score:2)
A female doctor does not make a compelling story. It's patronizing. They are saying we can't create an original female lead we need to based one on a existing male character. Gender bending is mental masturbation. It's done to titillate, not to be creative.
Re: (Score:2)
In the sixties it would have been called Nurse Who? And the Brigadier would have said "quiet please, the men are talking!"
Jeezis (Score:4, Funny)
sounds like they're just going through the motions (Score:4, Interesting)
I would hope that no one would be dumb enough to leak something on a public file sharing platform like dropbox/onedrive/etc without having taken many precautions to insure the account was registered and uploaded to with extreme anonymity. BBC is most likely aware that this is going to be a dead-end, and is just satisfying their legal requirement of "defense of their protected works" so as not to weaken the protections granted to them under copyright. (if you don't use the legal defenses granted to you, even on small things you don't care much about, they tend to be less effective down the road when you really do need to exercise them) This is why companied prefer to license things for $1/yr instead of just "not going after someone whose use they don't care about or mind". If anything, it's publicity, and as long as they don't actually identify and go after any individuals, it'll be mostly beneficial publicity, even if it appears to be negative.
Re: (Score:2)
I would hope that no one would be dumb enough to leak something on a public file sharing platform like dropbox/onedrive/etc without having taken many precautions to insure the account was registered and uploaded to with extreme anonymity.
People screw up all the time. Most particularly, people think that their info in the "cloud" is private all the time when it isn't.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
How dare you insinuate I don't know the law! I will sue you for embezzlement!
Re: (Score:2)
IDK. It might affect your ability to get an injunction in future cases. And, eventually, you'll end up with an adverse possession problem (it's not limited to real property).
I'm Spartacus (Score:2)
From TFS: OneDriver (sic) (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Too fucking right I'd download a car if I could reproduce one as cheaply and accurately as a digital download. Why hand over stupidly large amounts of cash for something with so low a marginal cost of reproduction?
Of course, offer me a car at a reasonable price without inconvenient restrictions and you'll get a sale. Much like the digital content I buy already..
No difference between this and the physical world. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except the original is still there.... The deprivation was not of the physical product, but the exclusivity of the product. Don't equate piracy to theft. They are inherently different.... I thought this was made clear 20 years ago. Stop spreading lies and misinformation.
Re: (Score:3)
They are different on some level, but not when you evaluate ( a crime has been committed, There is a normal process for tracking down the perpetrator). It really doesn't make a difference if the crime is copy right violation, theft, murder, speeding or public intoxication, the laws of evidence and proof are much the same. The only real difference is weather it is a capital crime ( aka punishable by the government and jail) or a civil crime ( aka I can sue you for money but you won't go to jail). I'd hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only real difference is weather it is a capital crime ( aka punishable by the government and jail) or a civil crime ( aka I can sue you for money but you won't go to jail).
By "capital," you actually mean, "criminal." In the U.S., "capital" crimes are those that are punishable by death.
There is no such thing as a, "civil crime" in the U.S. All crimes are criminal, and most, and perhaps all, monetary-only disputes are civil.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure I know the answer, Does someone , if the case is purely civil, like a divorce, can I person get a search warrant for private property? I know they can get a subpoena for bank records, this seems to fall somewhere in between.
Re: (Score:2)
obligatory (Score:2)
EX-TER-MIN-ATE!
Dalek Supreme: They cannot escape! Our [legal team] will soon follow them! They will be exterminated! Exterminated! Exterminated!
It was obviously The Master (Score:2)
I mean, how could it NOT be The Master.
He's had it out for The Doctor for a long time.
Or should I say, she's had it out for her.
Um.
Re:WTF? (Score:5, Informative)
Is this the level of comments nowadays?
These days? It has been like for quite some time, certainly over a decade. This actually looks better than normal, so far there is very little spam.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
appy app ludite hot DAMN grits?
Re: (Score:2)
shit forgot to add moo cow
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Waste of money (Score:2, Insightful)
The BBC is just acting like almost every other corporation out there. Even the vaunted Baen (which specifically released media to the public share) made efforts to shut down some distribution after their own mistakes.
Besides, if you want something repugnant to complain about, there are better examples. [thinkprogress.org] Now that's something that matters.
Re: (Score:2)
Who says they're spending lots of money on this? They really don't need to spend any serious money on this to still get all the press coverage they could dream of.
Re: (Score:2)
Compared to American shows, BBC tends to be low volume only a few episodes per season. So they need to make sure each episode really counts.
There is enough hype about the show. But a 1 minute clip taken out of context which may or may not be actually in the final cut. Can give the viewers the wrong impression of the show.
Lets say for the 10th doctor release they showed the "Timelord Victorious" speech. Where in the story shows the doctor at his lowest and most vulnerable. Would make him seem like a villai
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They have to do this. Doctor Who is one of their big money makers that they sell abroad. If they don't protect their intellectual property the TV networks they sell too will find it less attractive. That sweet season opening with a brand new female doctor that is bound to attract a bigger than usual audience will be ruined if there are too many leaks.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting the videos taken down as they did is good enough. Asking for details on the leakers is good enough. The rest is overkill for a 53 second clip. If people are fanatical about Dr Who then they will watch it anyway. If they're not fanatical about Dr Who then they very likely will never see the clip. All BBC has to do is say the clip is not representative of the final cut.
Re: (Score:2)
They know that someone with access to confidential materials is willing and able to share them outside the corporation.
I'd want to find out who that is, and revoke their access. Wouldn't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Amy Pond came back and she and the Doctor finally became the lovers we always knew they were.
Re:BBC can suck a BBC (Score:5, Interesting)
Perhaps you are just old.
When you are young the tropes and ideas whatever they are are new and novel to you. So they are interesting new ideas no matter how old they are. Then as you get older they become the same old thing over and over again.
The TV Shows/Movies/Music when you were the ages of 8-18 just isn't as good anymore with a noticeable decline seeming to happen at ages 20-25
By the time you reach your 50's and 60's such media is considered threatening to your way of life.
Before the age of 8 or so, your understanding on what is happening in media and arts is rather limited.
By the age of 8 or so your brain has developed to a point where you can understand abstract concepts and realize the meaning behind the art form. During the next decade you can absorb and comprehend such stories and topic, Until early adulthood. After that these things are becoming repetitive and tiresome.
Your viewing of such media declines because it reward is lessen, and other responsibility take president. Then as you get near retirement age, your responsibilities decline, and then are exposed to such media again nearly a half a century later you find that the same-old actually had changed and is promoting a life style and culture that you are not comfortable with and take it as a threatening message.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps you are just old.
Does it really matter? Some jokes may get old, some don't. It is just how they are presented, not what they are.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget nostalgia blinders. The old joke or idea may just trigger an emotion of a happy time for you or a happy time within a painful time.
If you go to a concert of a long time loved musical band, and you find their take of that popular song you once loved is different. Is now somehow different, you just don't get the same emotional response then from the recording.
Re: (Score:2)
Showed the show to my wife. She was never a fan. Showed her the classic episodes (Pertwee/Baker) and the new episodes with Matt Smith and Peter Capaldi. She did not like the new episodes. She much preferred the older ones.
Re: (Score:2)
In my mid-30's I can already tell you the slippery slope is real. We compromise one small thing at a time, become comfortable with the change as it becomes the new norm and then the next step feels like a small
Re: (Score:2)
Balderdash.
Then as you get older they become the same old thing over and over again.
By the time you reach your 50's and 60's such media is considered threatening to your way of life.
Pick one. Either it's always been the same old shit or it's new and scary and threatening to your old way of life.
Re: (Score:2)
Your characterization is accurate that popular tropes in film, TV, and literature lose novelty and impact as one matures. Experience results in familiarity which results in decreasing interest. This is true across generations.
However, what has changed over the past few generations is increased emphasis on younger and younger audiences. There was a time not long ago when a significant fraction of commercial film, TV, and literature was aimed at adults. This is a genuine cultural shift, and not just old peopl
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Feminism and other political nonsense have also infected the show. I hate when politics infect a show. I groan every time I get slapped in the face with political correctness, feminism, etc. It destroys the show.
Re: (Score:3)
"Political Correctness (aka, Political Censorship), is fascism pretending to be Manners."
-- George Carlin
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't have dog in this fight, I listen to the Dr Who stuff when I have time...
However, I noticed that you constructed a nice straw man there. I wanted to stop by and admire the artistry involved in the simply ignorant and intentional misreading and misrepresentation of an opinion.
Like poo flung on a wall, it is awesome in it's own destructive simplicity.
Rather, you might restate the parent's position back to them to assist in the discourse.
"Did you mean that you feel that women are being shoehorned into a
Femanism, Theory vs Reality (Score:2)
In practice a lot of femanists want to be more equal than men. As in equal in all aspects, except where things scew towards favoring women.
There is also a rather large group of "Femanists" that want revenge equalism. These feel that since men have had it good for so long, now women should get an advantage in everything over men.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in theory Femanism is about men and women being equal.
In practice a lot of femanists want to be more equal than men. As in equal in all aspects, except where things scew towards favoring women.
There is also a rather large group of "Femanists" that want revenge equalism. These feel that since men have had it good for so long, now women should get an advantage in everything over men.
That would be misandry rather than feminism, and I do agree that a number of self-proclaimed feminists are really misandrists; however, Doctor Who has never strayed into misandry even if it is has had feminist themes at times. Doctor Who, that I've seen, has never been more than promoting themes of equality.
Re: (Score:3)
That's pretty much taking his words and warping them to mean what you want them to. If there's an active feud between the two of you, I'll understand... but hear me out...
His point is clear. When a popular [insert medium here] (think.. TV show, music, movies) shoves ANY propaganda in your face when it didn't typically use to, people generally aren't very accepting of it. Unless it's Family Guy, of course.
I never got the impression that he hated women or wanted to see them mistreated/degraded on TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course the movement runs into a bit of trouble in that most women have never wanted to be the browbeating asshole careerman or CEO they think women should be and most of the culture the
Re: (Score:3)
Feminism and other political nonsense have also infected the show. I hate when politics infect a show. I groan every time I get slapped in the face with political correctness, feminism, etc. It destroys the show.
Feminism: the belief that women should be treated equal to men.
So you're saying if a woman is treated equal to a man on a show it destroys the show? A show is only worth watching if women are treated like crap? OK... whatever floats your boat.
Feminism half a century ago was like that. "Feminism" today is a farce. It's so bad they had to retcon the whole thing and label feminism as "First Wave" feminism. Feminists of that era widely criticize and deride modern "Third Wave" "feminism" because it's lost the plot so badly. (With social media and the craziness it fuels, are we now in "Fourth Wave" "feminism"?)
Re: (Score:2)
Why is this modded up? Pretty sure you're trolling here.
But in case you really didn't get the OP:
"Feminism" used to mean "equality".
"Feminism" today tends to refer to "Third Wave Feminism", which is looking less and less interested in equality. For citations, have you not been paying attention for the last 4 or 5 years?
It's similar to how "Diversity" in the U.S.A. this decade is more and more starting to mean "Fuck White People".
Summed up, the intent is fine. The execution.....is leaving a lot to be desired.
No, feminism still means equality. Misandry means hatred of men or promotion of women above men, and I won't disagree... some people are guilty of this. Diversity still means "diversity"; if a company is 100% black, hiring a white person would still be "diversity" in that company. The words still mean the same thing; the thing that has changed the most is some people are resisting the changes now that they are a little closer to realization than they once were.
I am a white male; I am pro feminism and di
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a difference between pirated footage and stolen production footage. Anyone who tries to leak the latter is just asking for the full weight of law enforcement.
Re: (Score:2)
Then how do you share it? If I download a video and what actually comes through is a zip or exe, I delete it. (I don't see this problem as much anymore but maybe I am using better indexers.)
Re:The Cost? (Score:4, Informative)
So, the BBC is asking Microsoft to do a deep-dive search across ALL OneDrive user accounts looking for a single file?
BS
No. They want Microsoft to identify who posted the linked file: see the TF article.
Re: (Score:2)
The DMCA has a number of provisions.
And this one is just a matter of basic fairness. If you want the content owner to sue the real pirate (vs the ISP), then you need to them who that is.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably because the rest of us understands how how globalization works.
Hollywood is a world renown for being a hub for movie and television production. They have a lot of talent concentrated in one spot. Vs the BBC who in general known for cheesy effects and production problems. Just compare Red Dwarf with Start Trek: The Next Generation in terms of production.
Re:British TV (Score:5, Informative)
Am I the only one wondering why a British TV series was having production work done in the US?
A lot of American film has work done in British studios. A lot of British film has work done in American studios. The industry has been internationalized for decades. Americans have been using Pinewood studios since the early days of TV and the British have been taking advantage of expertise in Hollywood- if you pay attention to closing credits; lots of Hollywood blockbusters have European centres involved. It's nothing new.
Re: British TV (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
... if you pay attention to closing credits; lots of Hollywood blockbusters have European centres involved. It's nothing new.
If anything, it's getting more and more prevalent as Hollywood weaves ever more elaborate tax dodges, and sucks in ever more distant tax subsidies.
If there's one thing that offends me more than anything about modern copyright, it's the fact that movies are being made with motherfucking government funding and yet somehow all the profits are privately owned in a byzantine corporate tangle that pays neither taxes nor profit-sharing to actors and production workers. THAT chaps my ass.
I want to forbid governme
Re: (Score:2)
a show that has travel to the ends of the universe (both time and space) might possibly has a few scenes on the other side of The Pond??
for Doctor Who a setting in the US is like having a scene down the street at the local Chemist
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is Doctor Who. If it had quality set design and acting it would be a betrayal of a decades old legacy.