Slashdot Mirror
Was the New Dr. Who Leaked on Purpose?
Static-MT writes "The pilot episode of the BBC's highly anticipated new Doctor Who series may have been intentionally leaked onto file-sharing networks to generate buzz, a source who instructed the network on viral advertising told Wired News."
Once again proving that "illegal" file sharing only helps good media and hurts bad media.
"A truly wise man realizes he knows nothing."
Well if its legal, meaning, the owners of the video purposely used this as advertisting, then who cares? Its a good idea if you ask me. Should be 'Distributed' via file sharing networks, not leaked :)
Sigs are for Terrorists.
Downloaded it, watched it, and felt that they had captured enough of the original that I want more. I hope that the Beeb does the right thing for those of us across the pond (USA).
In some jurisdictions in the world companies have to be careful about doing this because they give up parts of their exclusive ownership on the copyright of the work in question.
--
WHO ATE MY BREAKFAST PANTS?
It was the best looking AVI I've ever seen. All the credits were there and all the introduction with no slight cut-off near the end. It was leaked.
Who let the daleks out? Who? Who? Who?
Bailey said although he didn't have definite knowledge the leak was official, the quality of the episode is highly suspicious. If it were an unofficial leak, it would likely be of poor quality, he said.
The BBC denied any part in the distribution of the episode.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Let's hope this is the beginning of a trend. Between this "leak" and the Battlestar Galactica episode available on the Sci-Fi website for free, maybe television stations just get the "net" better than the RIAA and MPAA.
The pilot episode would garner the most ratings in the overnight to judge a success? (How many series "die" after the first episode from a poor showing). So if you leak the pilot, theoretically it doesn't get watched as much so you blow the "hook" to keep viewers coming back to the time slot next week.
But we don't believe him and are taking him to see the urologist.
I dont know if the leaking was intentional or not, but if the show is any good it will probably help the ratings. Battlestar Galactica came out first in the UK, and probably became the single most Bittorrented tv show before it aired in the US, to excelent ratings. The creator of BSG asked fans *not* to download the show, because he feared people who downloaded it wouldnt bother to watch it on TV. What really happened is, the show is excelent, and the buzz generated by all the early viewing probably helped the ratings a lot. In Brazil BSG started airing this month, and a lot of people who wouldnt otherwise even know it existed are tuning in to a semi-obscure cable channel because of early viewing.
Of course, if a show is crap P2P will probably hurt the ratings.
I can't think of any drama or comedy shows that had a very highly rated 1st episode, then a huge drop-off in the second.
Usually a large drop-off in ratings is caused by one of the following:
1. Cast changes (The Practice)
2. Genre Fatigue (Enterprise)
3. Timeslot follies (Futurama, Family Guy)
4. Jumping the Shark (Malcolm in the Middle, Will and Grace)
5. The thing everyone waited for happened (Cheers, Moonlighting, soon will happen to Lost and Desperate Hosuewives)
I would think that if the BBC wanted high ratings, the thing to do would be to get as many people as possible to see the 1st episode, then follow up with 2nd and 3rd episodes of extremely high quality. That seemed to work for Battlestar Galactica.
Having more and more people tune in each week is very desireable to TV programming people, much more so than a huge number of viewers initially due to curiosity, then a big fall-off because the show stinks and can't hold an audience.
...a source who instructed the network on viral advertising told Wired News."
Did anyone read this and think that this story itself was "viral advertising" for "the source who instructed the network"?
________________________________________________
suwain_2
1) This could be a very bad trend, if the MPAA and anti-piracy groups get their way. If the marketer doesn't do their due diligence and check with their law groups, then this "buzz" and viral marketing could get those who downloaded said video prosecuted for downloading something that was intentionally uploaded for marketing purposes. Downloading things such as fc3.x86.iso is safe because it's already known content. If i downloaded desperatehousewives.s1e21.avi, how would I know if this was a marketing release or not?
2) maybe pirate groups should create another meta tag for videos = screeners, telecines, marketing videos.
3) If it really was distributed on purpose, then there should have been a disclaimer, or some sort of "tag" at the end, a title page indicating that the full series would come up soon, with showtimes and the like. Otherwise, what's the point of the first episodes excepting to bring the viewers up to a point where they know the storyline will eventually be regardless?
4) The whole "quality of video" analysis doesn't sell me on the purposeful leak theory.
CBC will be airing the first episode on April 5th.
You sly dog: you got me monologuing! - Syndrome
It did not suck. The new doctor acted more like the doctor should act than some of the other doctors. The female lead (unknow to us americans, so i won't call her by name) acted like the typical Doctor sidekick: confused, panicky, causing more trouble than she's worth. Read the books, watch the old televesion serieses, and it's apparent that this new cast is quite in line with the previous generations.
and get sued by the MPAA or whoever, could I say I had the permission of the copyright holder since they (or an agent working directly for them) put the material on the intenet to begin with?
The Doormat
If you're not outraged, then you're not paying attention.
Why is this even a story? Surely the suprise would be if the BBC hadn't leaked it?
Not that I expect CBC themselves ever advocated the action (if they know who did it, the guy is certainly out of a job and probably facing copyright infringement charges). But anyways, I had heard somewhere that the source of the leak was traceable to CBC.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Decent Episode, could bode well. Will get the other episodes as they are aired. This Doc could be good. SciFi turned down the series, it would interfere with the repeats of ManSquito.
I think it's a pretty fascinating story how people and media companies are using the internet to promote themselves in very sneaky ways.
* Movie sites like aintitcoolnews.com routinely get "reviews" from movie companies trying to promote their own works (case in point, the number of positive pre-screening reviews for Be Cool, a really awful film)
* Paris Hilton's sex video leaks to the internet. Ooops! It gives her career such a boost that a second one "accidentally" leaks.
* Music companies, the sworn enemies of P2P file sharing, recover a lot of marketing data by routinely monitoring P2P traffic as a gauge of market tastes and artist popularity.
* The Blair Witch Project was famously promoted by creating bogus info sites, detailing the "legend" of the Blair Witch.
* How many people promote their own websites or products by submitting a story to Slashdot that casually mentions their site in the writeup? Too many to count!
That's just not any alien head, it's the alien head from another classic sci-fi series from the 1960's you may have heard of -- Star Trek.
Specifically, it's from the The Corbomite Maneuver episode.
Chip H.
Great, if true, because they can't prosecute anyone for doing what they themselves did. It's "equitable estoppel" ... A type of estoppel that bars a person from adopting a position in court that contradicts his or her past statements or actions when that contradictory stance would be unfair to another person who relied on the original position. For example, if a landlord agrees to allow a tenant to pay the rent ten days late for six months, it would be unfair to allow the landlord to bring a court action in the fourth month to evict the tenant for being a week late with the rent. The landlord would be estopped from asserting his right to evict the tenant for late payment of rent. Also known as estoppel in pais.
Like this?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.