Slashdot Mirror
New Dr. Who Episode Leaked
Cougem writes "BBC News is reporting on how an episode from the brand new series of the old science fiction TV show, Doctor Who, has been leaked onto the Internet. 'A 45-minute episode, called Rose, has appeared three weeks before the series is expected to begin on BBC One. Rose is the name of the character played by pop singer Billie Piper, who will be the assistant to the Doctor, played by Christopher Eccleston.' With people saying sci-fi appeals more to the technical minded viewer, will this TV show's release onto the Internet damage the ratings considerably for the BBC? Or is it a minor problem for a corporation whose role is just to provide the public with entertainment?" Maybe it will boost ratings, instead; the public buzz about "leaks" is still far ahead of the average viewer's ability to actually find and download.
There was a reasonably large argument over there about actually distributing it, but in the end a full seed was completed.
And no I have not watched it, yet.
The argument really did center around - would geeks watch it - or just download it and not support it. If there is no support for the series, then it will not continue being produced.
Counter arguments included: I will watch and pay for it anyway, I'm such a big fan - almost my opinion.
and
It's not scheduled here - I need my fix - usually americans...
Anyway, I think I will like it, and if I can catch it on TV, at a reasonable time - I will watch it.
For now - I have my fix if I need it.
JC
On Arrakis: early worm gets the bird. Magister mundi sum!
Maybe it will boost ratings, instead; the public buzz about "leaks" is still far ahead of the average viewer's ability to actually find and download.
Put it this way. A minute ago I had NO IDEA they were making new Dr. Who episodes.. now I do.
Thank you and have a nice day.
Update For for the dupe. Not going well. Appreciate all the hate mail. Really encourages improvement.
People who loved this series were religious, they'd watch the thing over and over anyway. It's not quite on the level of The Simpsons, but expose any given fan to any three minutes of any episode, and it was "Hey, this is the one where... Oh, yeah, SHE was the Doctor's assistant then..."
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Warren Ellis reviewed just this (I'm not going to link to his site, it's already slow), and said that Americans would almost certainly not enjoy it. It's (as far as he's concerned) a return to many things that're right and wrong with Brittish television, but far too Brittish for most of the rest of the world to enjoy, especially us Yanks.
"Word is that Sci-Fi Channel declined to acquire this new DOCTOR WHO series. And I can see why. It's too damned English." -Ellis
Who believes these 'leaks' anymore?
"Leaking" a program is not good advertising, good advertising is hyping something up and not letting anybody peek behind the curtain. For your premiere episode you want to keep people curious.
The XFL (An American Football League created by a Pro-Wrestling executive) was an example of excellent advertising. The premiere had amazing ratings just because nobody knew what to expect, then the league folded because it sucked.
A certain % of the interested audience will not like the show, whether it is good or bad (look at the people who hated Battlestar Galactica). But if nobody knows what to expect everybody from the interested audience will tune in.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
so its quite a bit rough with the cgi, credits and theme not even being done.
Dunno about that... they've already said they're keeping the "classic" theme music, the end credits looked just fine, the CGI is classic "bad-as-in-BBC" bad. And it tells a complete story - it's not like it cuts off at 45 minutes. (Maybe there's extra scenes, after dealing with the conspiracy nut?)
Overall, A-. The comic bits are a bit too frequent, but it felt like The Doctor.
"Sometimes a woman is a kind of religion, she can save your soul & set you free from all your sins" - Bad Examples
We don't get BBC over here and PBS hasn't had favorable deals to air Doctor Who in many years in my market, so there is almost no Doctor Who fix for me. It seems like when MythTV does catch it for me, it's an old William Hartnell episode. Bah.
Since when does the Beeb care about ratings? Do ratings have an impact on the collection of the license fees? (well, I suppose if ratings go low enough, then at some point people will stop owning/using their TVs...)
Also, is this series in continuity with the previous series? Or are they going for a tabula rosa to avoid the kinds of problems that plague series like Star Trek? (For example, Enterprise.) I'd hate to see the new series go in a weird direction in 12 years or so when the Doctor regenerates into the Valeyard.
Those who complain about affect & effect on
im a tax payer ( well i pay the license fee for BBC TV ) so technically ive already paid for the Beeb to produce this. I wonder how it can be convulted to prove that if I download it then im not infringing copywrite !
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
The local CBS gave up on it too in favor of reruns about when the local PBS affiliate discovered that Dr. Who fans made enthusiastic (if daftly dressed) volunteers and generous donors to educational television, and joined the bandwagon of PBS stations showing it.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
While that makes perfect sense to me, the court in the 2600 case concerning their link to DECSS forced them to remove it on a theory of contributory infringement.
In other words, if you give someone a link with the expectation they'll use it to infringe upon copyrights (with some "reasonable person" standard, which basically means whether the judge thinks you're trying to skirt the law or not) they may hold you liable for that act.
That said, I *really* wonder if they can find any reasonable line to draw there. I mean, suppose I give you the link Google.com--surely that's not too far? Then if I tell you to try filetype:torrent? Is that bad? There are surely legitimate torrents. And if I turn this into a search which gives movies you can infringe upon the copyright of? Is that bad? I really think the judge should not have tried to extend contributory infringement as far as he did, because I can only see a slippery slope down to not being able to link at all, which in effect makes the Internet itself illegal. I mean, what would a judge do if simultaniously confronted with defendants who did each of the things I listed, going just even further, but short of actually hosting any infringing work...