BBC and FACT Shut Down Doctor Who Fansite

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.

Comments

Don't worry

[Chelloveck]

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

Re:Don't worry

[Anonymous Coward]

It would have also avoided most of its audience.

Daleks did it?

[slickepott]

Hmm.. Sounded something like this?

EX-TER-MI-NATE!

Re:Daleks did it?

[AchilleTalon]

Apparently is more like: Dr No vs Dr Who.

Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue?

[Zocalo]

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?

[Frosty Piss]

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

[91degrees]

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?

[malacandrian]

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?

[Zocalo]

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?

[Teun]

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

Re:Anyone know what, exactly, was the issue?

[Teun]

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:So much for fair use

[91degrees]

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

Regrets

[7bit]

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"...

Here is the site

[Alain Williams]

http://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/, 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 ?

Re:So much for fair use

[MrL0G1C]

Understanding fair use

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.

This copywrite shit is getting pathetic

[malacandrian]

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.

Something's not right here...

[malacandrian]

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:Not sure about an older Doctor Who

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Not sure about an older Doctor Who

[MightyMartian]

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:Should have kept the domain name

[Anonymous Coward]

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:This copywrite shit is getting pathetic

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:Your Official guide to the Jigaboo presidency!

[MightyMartian]

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

Re:This copywrite shit is getting pathetic

[malacandrian]

"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.

In response to the announcement on their Facebook users are lamenting that they can no longer use the site to stream full episodes of both new and classic Who. Clearly the site must have offered streams of full episodes for the users to be upset that they aren't there anymore.

Re:This copywrite shit is getting pathetic

[geminidomino]

The methods I've seen have been mostly "slideshows" with audio tracks, and very rarely, someone recreating the video in an animated form.

Re:They messed with me once too... apk

[Richy_T]

127.0.0.1 bbc.co.uk

Done