Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

BBC and FACT Shut Down Doctor Who Fansite

timothy posted about a month ago | from the you're-gonna-need-a-bigger-tardis dept.

Sci-Fi 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.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Your Official guide to the Jigaboo presidency! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736485)

Congratulations on your purchase of a brand new nigger! If handled properly, your apeman will give years of valuable, if reluctant, service.

INSTALLING YOUR NIGGER.

You should install your nigger differently according to whether you have purchased the field or house model. Field niggers work best in a serial configuration, i.e. chained together. Chain your nigger to another nigger immediately after unpacking it, and don't even think about taking that chain off, ever. Many niggers start singing as soon as you put a chain on them. This habit can usually be thrashed out of them if nipped in the bud. House niggers work best as standalone units, but should be hobbled or hamstrung to prevent attempts at escape. At this stage, your nigger can also be given a name. Most owners use the same names over and over, since niggers become confused by too much data. Rufus, Rastus, Remus, Toby, Carslisle, Carlton, Hey-You!-Yes-you!, Yeller, Blackstar, and Sambo are all effective names for your new buck nigger. If your nigger is a ho, it should be called Latrelle, L'Tanya, or Jemima. Some owners call their nigger hoes Latrine for a joke. Pearl, Blossom, and Ivory are also righteous names for nigger hoes. These names go straight over your nigger's head, by the way.

CONFIGURING YOUR NIGGER

Owing to a design error, your nigger comes equipped with a tongue and vocal chords. Most niggers can master only a few basic human phrases with this apparatus - "muh dick" being the most popular. However, others make barking, yelping, yapping noises and appear to be in some pain, so you should probably call a vet and have him remove your nigger's tongue. Once de-tongued your nigger will be a lot happier - at least, you won't hear it complaining anywhere near as much. Niggers have nothing interesting to say, anyway. Many owners also castrate their niggers for health reasons (yours, mine, and that of women, not the nigger's). This is strongly recommended, and frankly, it's a mystery why this is not done on the boat.

HOUSING YOUR NIGGER.

Your nigger can be accommodated in cages with stout iron bars. Make sure, however, that the bars are wide enough to push pieces of nigger food through. The rule of thumb is, four niggers per square yard of cage. So a fifteen foot by thirty foot nigger cage can accommodate two hundred niggers. You can site a nigger cage anywhere, even on soft ground. Don't worry about your nigger fashioning makeshift shovels out of odd pieces of wood and digging an escape tunnel under the bars of the cage. Niggers never invented the shovel before and they're not about to now. In any case, your nigger is certainly too lazy to attempt escape. As long as the free food holds out, your nigger is living better than it did in Africa, so it will stay put. Buck niggers and hoe niggers can be safely accommodated in the same cage, as bucks never attempt sex with black hoes.

FEEDING YOUR NIGGER.

Your Nigger likes fried chicken, corn bread, and watermelon. You should therefore give it none of these things because its lazy ass almost certainly doesn't deserve it. Instead, feed it on porridge with salt, and creek water. Your nigger will supplement its diet with whatever it finds in the fields, other niggers, etc. Experienced nigger owners sometimes push watermelon slices through the bars of the nigger cage at the end of the day as a treat, but only if all niggers have worked well and nothing has been stolen that day. Mike of the Old Ranch Plantation reports that this last one is a killer, since all niggers steal something almost every single day of their lives. He reports he doesn't have to spend much on free watermelon for his niggers as a result. You should never allow your nigger meal breaks while at work, since if it stops work for more than ten minutes it will need to be retrained. You would be surprised how long it takes to teach a nigger to pick cotton. You really would. Coffee beans? Don't ask. You have no idea.

MAKING YOUR NIGGER WORK.

Niggers are very, very averse to work of any kind. The nigger's most prominent anatomical feature, after all, its oversized buttocks, which have evolved to make it more comfortable for your nigger to sit around all day doing nothing for its entire life. Niggers are often good runners, too, to enable them to sprint quickly in the opposite direction if they see work heading their way. The solution to this is to *dupe* your nigger into working. After installation, encourage it towards the cotton field with blows of a wooden club, fence post, baseball bat, etc., and then tell it that all that cotton belongs to a white man, who won't be back until tomorrow. Your nigger will then frantically compete with the other field niggers to steal as much of that cotton as it can before the white man returns. At the end of the day, return your nigger to its cage and laugh at its stupidity, then repeat the same trick every day indefinitely. Your nigger comes equipped with the standard nigger IQ of 75 and a memory to match, so it will forget this trick overnight. Niggers can start work at around 5am. You should then return to bed and come back at around 10am. Your niggers can then work through until around 10pm or whenever the light fades.

ENTERTAINING YOUR NIGGER.

Your nigger enjoys play, like most animals, so you should play with it regularly. A happy smiling nigger works best. Games niggers enjoy include: 1) A good thrashing: every few days, take your nigger's pants down, hang it up by its heels, and have some of your other niggers thrash it with a club or whip. Your nigger will signal its intense enjoyment by shrieking and sobbing. 2) Lynch the nigger: niggers are cheap and there are millions more where yours came from. So every now and then, push the boat out a bit and lynch a nigger.

Lynchings are best done with a rope over the branch of a tree, and niggers just love to be lynched. It makes them feel special. Make your other niggers watch. They'll be so grateful, they'll work harder for a day or two (and then you can lynch another one). 3) Nigger dragging: Tie your nigger by one wrist to the tow bar on the back of suitable vehicle, then drive away at approximately 50mph. Your nigger's shrieks of enjoyment will be heard for miles. It will shriek until it falls apart. To prolong the fun for the nigger, do *NOT* drag him by his feet, as his head comes off too soon. This is painless for the nigger, but spoils the fun. Always wear a seatbelt and never exceed the speed limit. 4) Playing on the PNL: a variation on (2), except you can lynch your nigger out in the fields, thus saving work time. Niggers enjoy this game best if the PNL is operated by a man in a tall white hood. 5) Hunt the nigger: a variation of Hunt the Slipper, but played outdoors, with Dobermans. WARNING: do not let your Dobermans bite a nigger, as they are highly toxic.

DISPOSAL OF DEAD NIGGERS.

Niggers die on average at around 40, which some might say is 40 years too late, but there you go. Most people prefer their niggers dead, in fact. When yours dies, report the license number of the car that did the drive-by shooting of your nigger. The police will collect the nigger and dispose of it for you.

COMMON PROBLEMS WITH NIGGERS MY NIGGER IS VERY AGGRESIVE

Have it put down, for god's sake. Who needs an uppity nigger? What are we, short of niggers or something?

MY NIGGER KEEPS RAPING WHITE WOMEN

They all do this. Shorten your nigger's chain so it can't reach any white women, and arm heavily any white women who might go near it.

WILL MY NIGGER ATTACK ME?

Not unless it outnumbers you 20 to 1, and even then, it's not likely. If niggers successfully overthrew their owners, they'd have to sort out their own food. This is probably why nigger uprisings were nonexistent (until some fool gave them rights).

MY NIGGER BITCHES ABOUT ITS "RIGHTS" AND "RACISM".

Yeah, well, it would. Tell it to shut the fuck up.

MY NIGGER'S HIDE IS A FUNNY COLOR. WHAT IS THE CORRECT SHADE FOR A NIGGER?
A nigger's skin is actually more or less transparent. That brown color you can see is the shit your nigger is full of. This is why some models of nigger are sold as "The Shitskin".

MY NIGGER ACTS LIKE A NIGGER, BUT IS WHITE.

What you have there is a "wigger". Rough crowd.

IS THAT LIKE AN ALBINO? ARE THEY RARE?

They're as common as dog shit and about as valuable. In fact, one of them was President between 1992 and 2000. Put your wigger in a cage with a few hundred genuine niggers and you'll soon find it stops acting like a nigger. However, leave it in the cage and let the niggers dispose of it. The best thing for any wigger is a dose of TNB.

MY NIGGER SMELLS REALLY BAD

And you were expecting what?

WHERE SHOULD I STORE MY DEAD NIGGER?

When you came in here, did you see a sign that said " Dead nigger storage"? That's because there ain't no goddamn sign.

Re:Your Official guide to the Jigaboo presidency! (4, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a month ago | (#47737419)

Reading at -1 is like having your soul sucked out and replaced by liquid nitrogen.

Re:Your Official guide to the Jigaboo presidency! (1)

Eevee (535658) | about a month ago | (#47737745)

So, in other words, reading at -1 is both friendlier and warmer than my ex-wife,

Your Official guide to the Jigaboo presidency! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47737453)

I guess you're still swooning over that $300 check George Bush sent you...

Boo Who! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736487)

Boo Who!

Re:Boo Who! (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about a month ago | (#47736493)

no no, they were saying boo-urns, boo-urns

So much for fair use (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736497)

Title says it all.

Re:So much for fair use (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736569)

The UK has no fair use provision in it's copyright law.

Re:So much for fair use (5, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | about a month ago | (#47736589)

Yes it does. It's called fair dealing. But it doesn't allow you to offer complete episodes of a TV show.

Re:So much for fair use (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736613)

Fair Dealing is like fair use, but much more restrictive.

Re:So much for fair use (1)

BitterOak (537666) | about a month ago | (#47737093)

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:So much for fair use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47737177)

I didn't mean that, I just meant generally.

Re:So much for fair use (1)

HiThere (15173) | about a month ago | (#47736597)

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:So much for fair use (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736681)

That possessive pronoun has no provision for an apostrophe.

Re:So much for fair use (2)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about a month ago | (#47736695)

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:So much for fair use (1)

Artifakt (700173) | about a month ago | (#47737579)

Which is sad, because the US could do a lot better.

Don't worry (4, Funny)

Chelloveck (14643) | about a month ago | (#47736507)

Don't worry, I'm sure it will regenerate soon enough.

Re:Don't worry (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736667)

Running it on .I2P and Tor's .onion would have avoided this problem.

Re:Don't worry (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736687)

It would have also avoided most of its audience.

This copywrite shit is getting pathetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736539)

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!?

This copywrite shit is getting pathetic (3, Insightful)

malacandrian (2145016) | about a month ago | (#47736771)

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 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.

Re:This copywrite shit is getting pathetic (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736869)

"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".

Re:This copywrite shit is getting pathetic (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736907)

How would one reconstruct missing episodes without storing and distributing video of those missing episodes?

Re:This copywrite shit is getting pathetic (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47737371)

If they're 'missing' it implies the "video" (actually it would be film) isn't available.

Re:This copywrite shit is getting pathetic (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about a month ago | (#47738795)

"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.

Not sure about an older Doctor Who (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736549)

But we'll have to see if he can pull this off. Wouldn't it be cool if Doctor Who teamed up with Sherlock on a future episode?

Re:Not sure about an older Doctor Who (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736693)

crossover episodes are always terrible just enjoy them separately and don't encourage them ruining both a little

Re:Not sure about an older Doctor Who (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736723)

Fuck you. The Magnum P.I. / Murder She Wrote crossover was awesome!

Re:Not sure about an older Doctor Who (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736961)

Funnily enough I didn't really like that crossover.

Murder, She Wrote is fucking awesome, though.

Re:Not sure about an older Doctor Who (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | about a month ago | (#47737169)

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:Not sure about an older Doctor Who (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736959)

I'm sure BBC would do it in a tasteful way, unlike the crapisodes on the other networks.

Re:Not sure about an older Doctor Who (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736957)

Are you trying to get slashdot taken down? Stop talking about Dr. Who! BBC doesn't want word of mouth advertising for their shows.

Daleks did it? (5, Funny)

slickepott (733214) | about a month ago | (#47736559)

Hmm.. Sounded something like this?

EX-TER-MI-NATE!

Re:Daleks did it? (1)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about a month ago | (#47737087)

Just run!

Re:Daleks did it? (2)

AchilleTalon (540925) | about a month ago | (#47737115)

Apparently is more like: Dr No vs Dr Who.

Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (5, Insightful)

Zocalo (252965) | about a month ago | (#47736565)

FACT was involved, so my first guess was that they were hosting full episodes, or perhaps links to torrents, but according to TFA DWM had refused to carry any of the leaked episodes from the new series which seems unlikely for a site turning a blind eye to copyright, yet further up is the following quote: "Often times, having watched stuff there led to me purchasing the exact same content on iTunes as well as all the various other content available for Doctor Who", which implies they were hosting episodes, or at least extensive clips.

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? (4, Informative)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a month ago | (#47736595)

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:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736609)

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:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (2)

malacandrian (2145016) | about a month ago | (#47736793)

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 do at least hint at it in the summary. That said, it's still beyond a joke that they're treating this like an outrage when it's simply the law acting like it should. How can we hope for a serious discussion about copyright reform when so many people take the childish approach of simply demanding to have exactly what they want for free all the time?

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (1)

7bit (1031746) | about a month ago | (#47736625)

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? (5, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | about a month ago | (#47736671)

No. It doesn't work like that.

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:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736675)

For redistribution and (i would guess) export?

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736849)

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 purchase.
This is why iPlayer was already scaled back horribly because they weren't allowed to pay for it and it was using up a lot of their finances.

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736651)

Depends on when the episodes were from.

Early TV broadcasts (telerecordings) aren't subjected to copyright iirc (despite not being public domain) and even if the BBC still owns them. (E.g. Hancock's Half Hour)

However, this is only up to a certain date, but I don't remember what it is.

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736767)

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:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about a month ago | (#47736749)

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:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (2, Informative)

Teun (17872) | about a month ago | (#47737147)

Nothing to do with taxpayers, it's licence payers that finance the Beep.

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47737233)

What is the difference between a TV licence payer and a taxpayer? Surely there is just a wee bit of overlap, no?

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (4, Interesting)

Teun (17872) | about a month ago | (#47737311)

Often, that's why comparable countries have done away with the licensing scheme and pay public broadcasters from general taxation.

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:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (1)

residents_parking (1026556) | about a month ago | (#47738529)

"... keeping the BBC free from political influence"

Or accountability. Seriously it would be easier on my conscience if the BBC were a government department. Because being forced to pay for something you can't control which rubs its own political ideology in your face every day ...... sucks.

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (1)

residents_parking (1026556) | about a month ago | (#47738841)

"as a Brit you can't avoid being a taxpayer but you can most certainly avoid being a licence payer."

If current murmurings are to be believed, the new DG wants iPlayer and all other "watch again" services to be subject to the license. IMHO that will make an Internet connection subject to the TV License.

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about a month ago | (#47737519)

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:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about a month ago | (#47737575)

Uh, no they dont - the detector vans have been a long running myth, they never existed.

Re: Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47738049)

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:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (1)

residents_parking (1026556) | about a month ago | (#47738701)

Erm they do. I'm working on an upgrade for a subsystem right now.

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47738785)

"Uh, no they dont - the detector vans have been a long running myth, they never existed."

True story.. They would actually hire people to go out in unmarked white vans and sit in council estates, trying to scare people into paying up.

Disclaimer. Manager told me when I used to work there.

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (2)

Zocalo (252965) | about a month ago | (#47736885)

Thanks for the clarification, I was leaning towards that being that case, but as others have noted that *really* need to be in the summary as it sets the tone of the entire story from "fan site shut down" to the far more accurate and far less newsworthy "site hosting lots of copyright infringing content shutdown". There's a big difference between the BBC exercising its rights to shutter outright copyright infringement and the BBC strong-arming a legit fan site for using too much content, and it's not that the latter gets DICE more page views and ad impressions.

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (1)

Threni (635302) | about a month ago | (#47738447)

From somewhere or other: "You can't shut us down. The internet is about the free exchange and sale of other people's ideas. We've done nothing wrong."

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47738691)

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"?

Well after Tennant left a lot of users probably did too.

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736819)

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.

Google hosts links for torrents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47738101)

So why doesn't the BBC and FACT take down google?

Oh that's right, Google is a direct arm of the CIA and NSA, that's why.

Should have kept the domain name (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a month ago | (#47736577)

He should have held on to the domain name. He may have been obigated to shut the site down, but nothing requires him to give the name over to them. I am not familiar with trademark law in England, but in the US they probably would have no standing at all, since they didn't enforce it over the course of the last four years. Indeed, I would expect that he can sue for damages, as they allowed hi to build a community and continue to generate interest for their product, choosing to wait until they released new episodes, choosing then and only then to try (successfully it seems) to take over the site and its community.

Re:Should have kept the domain name (1)

whoever57 (658626) | about a month ago | (#47736745)

He should have held on to the domain name. He may have been obigated to shut the site down, but nothing requires him to give the name over to them.

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:

With the user database secured, an agreement was quickly reached to close down the site and transfer the domain.

Re:Should have kept the domain name (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a month ago | (#47736785)

There is a lesson to be learned here: Don't ever, ever negotiate an agreement with two guys who show up at your door unannounced and claim that it is in your best interest to sign on the dotted line .. or else.

Re:Should have kept the domain name (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47737105)

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.

Re:Should have kept the domain name (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47737253)

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:Should have kept the domain name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47737077)

From TFA: "With threats of executing an official search warrant and taking the matter to court if terms could not be reached, there was never any question of embarking on a losing battle." In short, he was intimidated and had to cave in. You can fantasize about The Matrix and V for Vendetta all you like but when it comes to reality, The Man wins. Every. Single. Time. They have more power and money than Ned the Nerd can ever dream about and they will use it. All your duster and glasses dreams will melt like snow the moment you understand you won't have any future to speak of - and neither will your family - if you try to take on the corporate juggernaut. The internet - and the inexistant "rights online" - is a lost cause. Get over it.

Re:Should have kept the domain name (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a month ago | (#47737143)

From Planet Earth: When there is no reason to believe that a crime has been committed, you can't get a search warrant.

" In short, he was intimidated and had to cave in. "

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:Should have kept the domain name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47737271)

So what? Debt collection companies practise extortion all the time, nobody ever goes to jail. Want to know why? Because the victims know they don't have the resources to fight it out and big corporations love debt collection companies. You are alone against a financial monster that has absolutely no qualms about making an example out of you poor sod, and the rest will toe the line. No judge will show sympathy to you, ever. The future is here now: a branded, expensive shoe stomping on a human face, forever,

Re:Should have kept the domain name (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about a month ago | (#47737403)

"So what? Debt collection companies practise extortion all the time, nobody ever goes to jail."

Your statement is true, but you don't understand what it means.

" No judge will show sympathy to you, ever."

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:Should have kept the domain name (1)

porges (58715) | about a month ago | (#47737535)

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:Should have kept the domain name (1)

NormalVisual (565491) | about a month ago | (#47737919)

Want to know why? Because the victims know they don't have the resources to fight it out and big corporations love debt collection companies.

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 their word.

Regrets (2)

7bit (1031746) | about a month ago | (#47736601)

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:Regrets (1)

7bit (1031746) | about a month ago | (#47736619)

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:Regrets (1)

SteveAstro (209000) | about a month ago | (#47736713)

You'd think so wouldn't you, but no, its not, and the BBC is VERY cagey about rights management.

Re:Regrets (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736843)

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.

Here is the site (2)

Alain Williams (2972) | about a month ago | (#47736615)

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 ?

Never seen a Dr Who (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736623)

So no loss. I know there is a telephone booth involved. A red one. That is all. Am I missing out?

Re: Never seen a Dr Who (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736657)

That's how you troll right there.

Re:Never seen a Dr Who (1)

tepples (727027) | about a month ago | (#47736685)

Confusing with Bill and Ted? Someone in #nesdev last night confused Bill and Ted with Wayne's World so I can see how it might happen.

Re:Never seen a Dr Who (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736887)

Yesterday, when all my troubles seemed so far away, I spoke with a lass and somehow I brought up Star Trek - Captain Kirk, Spock ... She knew nothing of Star Trek. Nothing at all. I had to check if there was some mark on the back of her neck. She slapped me and ran away.

Never seen a Dr Who (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47737427)

The only episodes I ever got into were in the early 90's with the guy with orange curly hair. As a result, if I watch an episode with any of the approximately 1 billion other actors who played Dr. Who, my brain doesn't even register it as the same show.

(PS, the special effects suck. Sonic screwdriver? WTF? And kick that Dalek in the tookus so you can watch him tumble down the stairs.)

Re:Never seen a Dr Who (1)

Megane (129182) | about a month ago | (#47737637)

That would be the superior show Inspector Spacetime. [wikia.com]

Something's not right here... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about a month ago | (#47736635)

"With threats of executing an official search warrant and taking the matter to court...an agreement was quickly reached to close down the site"

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 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.

Something's not right here... (4, Interesting)

malacandrian (2145016) | about a month ago | (#47736831)

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.

Re:Something's not right here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736917)

What's not right here is that TorrentFreak is not giving the entire story in an attempt to garner sympathy. It was a site for watching Doctor Who episodes online without paying for them. Plain and simple.

Shot themselves in the foot there (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736649)

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 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.

Shot themselves in the foot there (1, Informative)

malacandrian (2145016) | about a month ago | (#47736811)

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 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.

Re: Shot themselves in the foot there (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47738093)

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.

Who's ur fanbase? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736733)

Over-reaching corporations are worse than the dreaded Daleks.

The Doctor did it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736923)

He's removing himself from history to get River released from prison.

The FACT is (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736945)

there is no such thing as copyrigt theft. You might infringe on copyright, in that case you never had the right to copy, but how could you possibly steal the right to copy something.

They messed with me once too... apk (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736955)

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 & tech for free to them too), & FAR MORE EFFICIENT single moving part machinery done in a language that rivals & even exceeds MSVC++ in Borland Delphi 7.1 Object Pascal code.

They told me, after seeing it, I "violated their intellectual property"... I was like "WTF? I am offering it to you, for free, since it's TECHNICALLY FAR BETTER THAN THE CRAP FLASH ONES YOU USE NOW, & far, Far, FAR SAFER WITH LESS BUGS/SECURITY ISSUES!" & I was not 'selling it' either... it was 100% free.

They're fools.

APK

P.S.=> How stupid could they be? I'm a HUGE Dr. Who fan & have been since "Tom Baker" days (loved the series 2005 to present too, David Tenant rocks) - Well, They (iirc) also shut down the site it was on also like this article alludes to as well - dumbest thing you can do? ANGER YOUR FANS... you're NOTHING minus them!

... apk

Re:They messed with me once too... apk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47738943)

maybe its a lesson for you. Including someone elses content on your own product is just not allowed. .avi file with BBC content in it is clearly not authored by yourself. If you have nice engine available, it should be able to live on its own terms instead of by popularity of famous tv series.

Spite! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47736963)

Just to spite them i now have to download every Doctor Who episode and add to my collection. Thanks BBC! :D

mo3 down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47737187)

fear the reaper this e8ploitation, dead. It is a dead

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47737189)

I'd rather eat a shit sandwich than watch that crap.

You know what this means... (1)

Zamphatta (1760346) | about a month ago | (#47737237)

Daleks have infiltrated the BBC.

The BBC is now run by a Jew... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a month ago | (#47738907)

...Whoops! I said the word "Jew", and we all know that's now a 'hate' crime... the JEWS said so!

http://balder.org/judea/Hate-Speech-Laws-Immigration-Jewish-Influence-Britain.php

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?