Slashdot Mirror
Culprit of Leaked Doctor Who Episode Found
marekk writes "The person responsible for leaking the premeire episode of the new BBC Doctor Who series has reportedly been uncovered and fired according to BBC . Looks like the speculation over possible viral advertising by the BBC didn't pan out. "
If you're not a regular follower of the BBC, there are large structural changes and job cuts afoot. Remember those glorious days you could catch the World Service via shortwave in North America? I still can, from the Carribean. But where am I supposed to watch the latest Dr. Who? Are there BBC TV channels carried via satellite? Will I be able to download it? I get blocked from live sports casts, which usually say 'to UK only'
Note to /. ed: 'too-bad'
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Who?
I was hoping the rumours of it being an intentional leak were true. That leak generated a lot of interest in the new series. (and Rose is a good episode ;))
Trolling is a art,
It's not a person at the BBC.
BBC Worldwide said in a statement: "After a thorough investigation by BBC Worldwide's Canadian broadcast partner, the source of the leak of episode one of the new Doctor Who series has been traced to a third party company in Canada which had an early preview copy for legitimate purposes. The individual responsible for the leak has had their employment terminated by that company as a result.
So basically they didn't like the possiblity of negative press over the viral advertising issue and decided to issue a vague statement that doesn't prove anything and instead leads me to believe even more now than before (I didn't care at all before) it's a cover up.
Employee leaks episode
Damage control team decides to leak story of viral advertising
Millions download the first Dr. Who episode
Why not?
How come when a DVD or game gets leaked on the net people manage to get away with it but this poor chap not associated with the BBC gets tracked down and fired? Is he just really stupid, bad at covering his tracks, or someone they could blame?
Find the phone booth and go back to tell yourself NOT to leak the show!
Human nature is the same everywhere; the modes only are different. -- Earl of Chesterfield
More importantly, Where can I find a .torrent for this leaked Dr. Who Ep? :)
Or maybe a sonic screwdriver..
I posted in the "speculation" news item, that the BBC is unlikely to do this type of thing. When looking for conspiracies one must take into account the character of the "persons" involved. The BBC is very above the board, and very conservative. Those two items combined made it hard to believe they would use misdirection in advertising. Combine that with the "accusers" were making wild speculation without any substantiation, and the conclusion of this story was obvious.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
I must be missing something, but what reason could a nationalized television station possibly have to generate buzz? They've already got a captive audience that is required to pay up front whether they watch the channel or not. Who would think this was some sort of conspiracy to get viewers?
I'm not one to look a gift horse in the mouth, though. Dr. Who is good TV, and "lost episodes" are as legitimate as mainline stories in my book. It's kind of like the Star Wars books, sure they may not hold as steadfast to the primary memes of the movies, but in some respects that just makes them more intriguing and more related to the Star Wars universe than if they had followed the script rote.
Unless it turns out that they contracted the Canadians specifically so that this guy could be fired? Anyone talk to his coworkers?
[o]_O
Who Dunnit
So now we know who leaked who maybe they can find out why since where and when and what are clear...
okay ?
And thats why Firecrackers and kittens don't mix.
For all the obvious reasons. This is the future of generating interest in new series(es?). Look at the bold move by Battlestar Galactica. There's going to come a time when you're not going to NOT see this. How do you generate interest in your new series if none of the eyeballs look first to the Television for entertainment anymore?
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
/planning to download and watch the official broadcast version too
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Rainy scene of gallows where leaker is hanged.
...They are very conservative of their own intellectual property.
Liberal on the news, yes, but they guard their money like any decent capitalist would.
Just in case you aren't joking: Conservative in their manner of business... not political viewpoints. The BBC is more fair and balanced than any major news organization we have in the states. CNN used to compete, in my mind. However, revelations about their handling of pre-war Iraq journalism has tainted them.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
Too bad they didn't realize
If anything this has been good publicity. I'm not saying that the guys a hero, he kinda is in a fanboy sort of way, as anyone who watched Rose has to admit, but don't get legal on his ass. The loss of his job is punishment enough.
If he had released the entire series, or several episodes, that would be solid grounds for legal action.
At least they know who the tard is...
Yep, it's the only place to go for honest news.
Sounds like a pr0n series. "playing doctor" "who's on first base"...
Culprit of leaked, Doctor Who episode found.
Culprit of leaked doctor, who episode found.
Culprit of leaked Doctor Who, episode found.
Culprit, of leaked Doctor, Who, episode found.
Man. It took several false starts to actually be able to fully decode this headline. It seemed strangely right-recursive.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
We need to invade Canada.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
The reason they no longer do shortwave world service to north america is because its available on most NPR stations, but also because its available 24/7 streaming over the web, as is all of their radio stations. Why bother broadcasting to a country where internet access is a given for the the majority of the country in crackly unreliable shortwave when you can get it in crackly unreliable but much easier to access internet feeds?
n/t
I wasn't intrested in Dr. who (infact I disliked it while friends loved it) and didn't even know about the new series untill the leak. Now I see it all over TV (and billboards in town) and I'm wanting to see the first episode or two to see what it'slike and if the geeks who loved it/hated it were right/wrong in my opinion.
So while this guy may of been leaking stuff, he also got someone intrested in the series when beyond they would of just been sick of the adverts and gone "Man Billie Piper pisses me off the slag".
I like muppets.
just like spammers that run ISP's say "oh yes that was a bad customer so we terminated their account"
thesedays thanks to marketing, large companies, goverments, politicians are so full of bullshit i have trouble believing anything that anyone says
why tell the truth when you can lie instead
A picture of the culprit can be found here.
It's good to use your head, but not as a battering ram.
I don't entirely see why they had to fire him, the damage had already happend, and a firm warning that this'd not be tolerated should be enough. What if the Academy Award tossed out all those who where to preview movies, but showed them/lended them to family etc.?
Assembling etherkillers for fun an profit
Culprit of Leaked Doctor Who Episode Found
I had no idea how to read the subject line until I jumped into the comments. Might have been easier if they had put "Doctor Who" in quotes.
Different ways to have read the subject:
Culprit of the Leaky Doctor (he soiled himself) was found (while watching) an Episode (of Desperate Housewives)
Culprit of leak? A clumsy Doctor! Who found the episode?
Where in the US are we going to be able to see this?? I'm assuming PBS, same as before... but will we get it in a timely manner? Months, years later? If not PBS... who else does BBC shows? No One? Only those with the BBC channel (sattelite and some digital cable)???
And I agree, invade canada. They're evil.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
We apologise for the early release of the episode. Those responsible have been sacked. [Then it becomes known the released episode is higher quality that what you'll get on TV] We apologise again for the accidental release of such a high-quality version. Those responsible for sacking the people who have just been sacked have been sacked.
Well, most-everyone North of your border and in most of the world is beginning to feel that about the US.
the bbc are putting all their archive content online.
Are there BBC TV channels carried via satellite?
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
have just been sacked.
And spaghetti grows on trees ;).
Other BBC hoaxes. Auntie Beeb has always like to have one up on her audience.
I mean, not that I don't figure being fired is appropriate to the situation, but really... is this expression something you would normally see used by a professional journalist?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The BBC is more fair and balanced than any major news organization we have in the states.
Sorry, but when you have a rule where referring to Saddam Hussein as a dictator is prohibited, you lose any claim to being fair and balanced.
And he would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
Since the show has BBC Wales in the credits, shouldn't it be "Culprit of Leeked Doctor Who Episode Found"?
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Those responsible for saying that the person who was sacked was fired, have been sacked...
A headline which can actually be improved by translation into yoda-speak:
Culprit of Leaked Doctor Who Episode, Found Is He
Reminds me of a series of stories SF writer Gene Wolfe published some years ago which were all titled as variations of the same phrase:
The Island of Doctor Death
The Death of Doctor Island
The Doctor of Death Island
Please point me to this rule. I'd really be interested to see the context.
Thanks.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
We're frozen so you can't blame us too much. It's always some Canadian or otherwise untoward person. Probably why I love being one. Drinking, cursing and Dr Who for free, gotta love it.
.....They borrowed Dr Who's Police Box and went back in time to catch the culprit loading the episode onto the internet. In a rather weird coincidence they bumped into SG1 who were searching for a lost Star Gate in Canada.
Why mod someone as flamebait merely because his or her opinion differed from that of the moderator? I see nothing in the parent's post that could be considered inflammatory. It's someone's honest opinion about a TV Show. It's not real. Personally, I watched the show in the '80s, felt it was too campy and hadn't watched since. I did watch "Rose" and for whatever reason saw some charm in the campiness and am looking forward to seeing future episodes.
Mr. T pitied this fool on 27 July 1992.
As pointless and off-topic as the parent it's defending...
How did it go from Dr. Who to posting a Monty Python skit?
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Yeah, I like Dr Who too, but a polite "Sorry, I don't like it" still doesn't deserve Flamebait modification. Jees, there are some silly children amongst the moderators.
a quick google reveals some links to blogs which in turn reference the daily telegraph (make of that what you will) which in turn states something like the following:
"An email has been circulated telling us not to refer to Saddam as a dictator," I'm told. "Instead, we are supposed to describe him as the former leader of Iraq. Apparently, because his presidency was endorsed in a referendum, he was technically elected. Hence the word dictator is banned. It's all rather ridiculous."
Bring back the old version of slashdot.
NBC's forthcoming 'remake' of THE OFFICE has been given its own profile on MySpace. On said profile, they have character bios and a 10-15 minute segment of one of the episodes. I assume they did this in the hopes of generating buzz about the show, but all it did for me was cement the fact that NBC is grabbing at straws and probably shouldn't be wasting their time trying to Americanize a formerly funny series. Need more proof? Check out their version of COUPLING. And I'm pretty sure that they were responsible for the pilot episode of the US version of RED DWARF.
I'd give a link, but I can't hit MySpace from work.
"How like you to drag your keyboard to a gun fight." - Aaron Bedard (BANE)
It's all gets pack to property ownership. Nobody has any right whatsoever to disseminate material that does not belong to them. If you choose to do otherwise, you assume all the risk that goes with it. You could up a folk hero, or bubba's favorite squeeze. If you end up in the latter situation (or in some other pool of hot water), too bad . Make better decisions next time.
It's "too" bad. Not "to" bad!
No, they're keeping the theme music - and the dematerializing/materializing noise.
I heard a radio interview on BBC Radio 2 (Steve Wright Show) this last Tuesday afternoon with the guy who plays the new doctor WHo and he stated that, along with a lot of other stuff. Was a cool interview, catch it in the BBC Radio archives... about halfway thru the show
And the people shall be oppressed, every one by another, and every one by his neighbour Isaiah 3:5
Have any slashdot conspiracy theories actually been true? I would mention Rambus, but that one was exposed by THG.
I don't get it. BBC is goverment funded and supposed to be of service to people. If people want to download their content, why restrict this? Are they counting on selling the series to other broadcast companies? I think a show can only benefit from being downloadable. Friends is widely available and they still show it on TV in nearly every country. Who knows, maybe Firefly would be still in production if they would have leaked a couple of episodes and made a big fuss about it before hand.
The first episode (Canada) is supposed to air here April 5. I remember watching it (mpeg) 2 weeks ago. It's still on usenet too (along with about 10 other episodes). It's not a bad way of sukking people into the series though, and a nice collectors edition for the fanatic.
Not conservative- very liberal and definate anti-american bias. Definately not fair and balanced. I listen to a wide variety of news sources including cnn, npr, fox, talk radio, radio pacifica, and BBC. There are no longer unbiased news services. Even when there -were- unbiased news services there were very few. Unbiased news is very dry. None report -just the facts- any more. They report opinions or slant their delivery to overlay an opinion on the facts.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
I have watched BBC TV on cable TV for several years now. I believe that I can say that they have a strong anti-american, anti-Bush and Anti-Israel bias. If you want specifics from a good source, check out www.camera.org. - Alvin
But the BBC (like all UK broadcasters) are subject to something like a fairness doctrine, meaning that both sides need to be given equal airtime for their views. That's something that doesn't exist in the USA at this time.
It's unbelievable just how shitty this show is going to be, if the first episode is any indication. Just bloody awful.
However, revelations about their handling of pre-war Iraq journalism has tainted them. Out of curiousity, what do you mean by this?
Please Cmdr Taco, it's 'too,' not 'to.' We must do our best to preserve the language against internet corruption!
--
The BOFH Capitalist Pedant.
The 'equal time' rule only applies when the BBC is reporting on news relating directly to the UK or its interests.
The BBC *generally* applies the rule to everything, but there have been some notable cases where it has fallen by the wayside in the name of sensationalism. The Michael Jackson trial is an example.
I was conned by an old man in a cloak. It turns out those *were* the droids I was looking for.
That poor guy should be given a raise for getting people interested in the series. It personally puts a bad taste in my mouth that they're so heavy handed as this that now I don't even want to watch the show. Which is too bad because it's probably good.
Then again they probably fucked it up anyways and it won't do the original any justice, like Battlestar Galactica.
The BBC would like to apologize for leaking the first or the new Dr. Who episodes. Those responsible have been sacked.
When all of their corresponents in Iraq were handled by minders. They were not allowed to leave the presence of the minders. They could not speak to anyone that the minders said they were allowed to speak to. And remember that whatever a person said to the "journalist" would be heard by the minder, and reported to the authorities if not "appropriate". This is not surprising. What is, is that CNN never divulged this. When you saw the Iraqis praising Saddam, it was not under open circumstances. Had CNN qualified their interviews with this pertanent information, it would have given a much different view of Iraq than many of us got.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
The BBC has rigorous regulation and has a massive listening station for gathering news, not to mention a massive editorial department to ensure the facts. The fact you even listen to Fox and talk radio (which have proven themselves worthless time and time again) shows what you think makes a good news station, so your opinion isn't so worrying - kind of expected. ;)
A blog with a link to the Telegraph's website, which doesn't work... However, I found it here. It's a gossip column, quoting from an anonymous source. Beyond this, I can't find anything but the usual right-wing blog noise.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Bear in mind, however, that in the context of a comparison to American news sources, the phrase 'fair and balanced' actually means 'flagrantly right-wing to such an extent that it would even embarrass the editor of the Daily Mail'...
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Incorrect assumption. The fact that you do not listen to "right wing" shows as well as "left wing" shows means you probably are unable to recognize the left wing tendencies of the BBC. The BBC can produce a series of honest pieces on American vices which are none-the-less biased because they completely omitted appropriate counterpoints of American virtues. Just because talk radio or Fox say something doesn't mean it's not true. You really need to listen to all sides instead of just your slanted but supposedly unbiased news sources. NPR is extremely hard left. I listen to them regularly. Some of what they say is unpleasant but true. However, I know that if the US did exactly the right thing, they would STILL find a negative slant like "US ruins natives lives by giving them free money" or some crap like that. BBC has a systematic anti-american slant by virtue of the news it chooses to broadcast and the news it chooses to supress. They occasionally broadcast pro american stories. Fox and conservative talk radio have a systematic pro-american slant by virtue of the news it chooses to broadcast and the news it chooses to supress. They occasionally broadcast anti-Bush stories. They -rarely- broadcast anti-american stories (tho they did a pretty balanced job on the abbu-grabe (sp?) stuff). As I said, I listen to all the sources from hard left Radio Pacifica to soft left BBC, to "yuppie left" NPR, to conservative Fox to right-wing talk radio. I do some additional reading and then make up my own mind about what I want to support and believe in.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Here is how it plays out. You have a left-wing contrasted with a centrist or even a left-leaning centrist. Or a hard right is put on and made to look like a fool because the host lets the left winger talk over them but cuts off the right-winger. Or they ask an incredibly complex question and give 30 seconds to answer it. I regularly scoff outloud in my car at conservative talk radio bias in the mornings driving to work. They can be for or against the same issue depending on if conservatives are backing it currently (recent example- senate filibusters blocking judicial nominees). I also listen to BBC (on radio pacifica in the morning drive time) and find it to have left-wing bias. We had the "fairness" doctrine here in the US for decades and it resulted in a huge amount of left-biased news. It's like what is going on at Harvard right now. Free speech doesn't exist when you say things the left do not approve of.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
***spoiler warning***
I really enjoyed it up to the part where the boyfriend gets swallowed up by the trash-can. They tried just a tad too hard to make this funny. Actually, the swallowing I can handle - but the burp? Come on - don't they expect that semi-science-savy folk would be watching? Why would the trash-can burp? It didn't eat and ingest him, it has no stomach with extra gas, etc., etc.
Later, when the shait hits the bloomin' fan, why just manikins? Why not all manner of plastic, even gum wrappers? How cool if anything plastic would have "turned" against humanity?
Earlier in the episode, while I was still liking it, they even joked about the silliness of taking over manikins, yet, at the end, it was manikins that tried to take over...
And, er, on that note: why? Why take over, and, er, take over what? Why shoot folks in shopping centers, and, why did all of those manikins come with guns? What was their plan - certainly if the military would have been called in, those slow moving and clumsy pieces of walking plastic would have been easy fodder...
Perhaps if the plastic-queen would have had more character, it could have saved the episode. Many Tom Baker episodes - the ones I remember the best - featured lots of talk and interaction with the bad-guys. Even if you didn't always feel for them, you understood their aims, the reason they were pissed, their goals, etc. At first, I really liked the pace, but by the time it was over, I missed the long and sometimes meandering 2 hour old-style...
The good: refreshing look for the TARDIS, a likable Doctor with much potential, a very cute associate, vastly better special effects
The bad: rushed-story line lacking depth, trying too hard and therefore failing to be funny
The main components - the Doctor, the TARDIS, and the associate are good - this series can work, if they try to make this a tad more into a semi-serious sci-fi show, and stay away from the Hercules sitcom-fantasy-style which they seem to have adopted. Judging from the preview of the next episode and the "last human" and her comments about plastic surgery, I don't have high-hopes at this point...
They should realize that ordinary non-scifi types will not appreciate their efforts to be funny at the expense of sci-fi - Dr. Who just isn't for "ordinary" folks, period, IMO. Their only hope is to appeal to their real target audience and make something they can be proud of.
dahlek (will you squirm when you are pecked