BBC Wants Microsoft To Expose 'Doctor Who' Leaker (torrentfreak.com)

Last month, the BBC headed to court to track down the person who leaked an incomplete scene featuring Jodie Whittaker's Thirteenth Doctor. New court documents suggest that the British broadcaster has yet to find the perpetrator, and is hoping Microsoft can help. At a federal court in Washington, the BBC requested a DMCA subpoena targeted at a OneDriver user who shared the infringing material online late June. TorrentFreak reports: In an effort to track down the source of the leak the BBC has taken the matter to the U.S. courts. Last month it obtained a DMCA subpoena from a California federal court, ordering the forum tool Tapatalk to identify the source of an infringing post. Whether this resulted in any useful information is unknown, but a few days ago it became clear that BBC is still investigating the matter. In a separate effort, BBC Studios have filed a request for a DMCA subpoena at a Federal court in Washington. This time it's directed at Microsoft. According to the BBC, a user of Microsoft's OneDrive stored and shared a copy of the leaked file, titled "IMG_ l563.TRIM.MOV."

"The infringing material includes, without limitation, an unauthorized copy of copyrighted video content from Season 11, Episode 1 of Doctor Who, for which BBC Worldwide Limited t/a BBC Studios (Distribution) is the exclusive licensee," the BBC writes. According to the BBC, the footage in question was stolen from the studio. Through the subpoena, the company hopes to find out more about the source of this leak, to prevent similar situations going forward. It asks Microsoft to hand over any relevant information that can help to identify the account holder who uploaded the video, which was added to OneDrive back in June. This includes "any name, account name, address, telephone number, email address, birth date, profile photo, device information, browser information, location information, information from others (e.g., Facebook or Google+) and time posted."

Comments

BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Dr who is a retarded show. Probably didn't get downloads anyway.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Used to love it as a child, but can't stand the new episodes. It tries too hard to be quirky and fun and fails on all counts.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

BBC is owend by the government, so Dr Who and is liberal propaganda.
--
cayenne8

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[giggleloop]

So it's owned by the conservative government and is simultaneously liberal propaganda? That's.... interesting.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[jellomizer]

Perhaps you are just old.

When you are young the tropes and ideas whatever they are are new and novel to you. So they are interesting new ideas no matter how old they are. Then as you get older they become the same old thing over and over again.

The TV Shows/Movies/Music when you were the ages of 8-18 just isn't as good anymore with a noticeable decline seeming to happen at ages 20-25
By the time you reach your 50's and 60's such media is considered threatening to your way of life.

Before the age of 8 or so, your understanding on what is happening in media and arts is rather limited.
By the age of 8 or so your brain has developed to a point where you can understand abstract concepts and realize the meaning behind the art form. During the next decade you can absorb and comprehend such stories and topic, Until early adulthood. After that these things are becoming repetitive and tiresome.
Your viewing of such media declines because it reward is lessen, and other responsibility take president. Then as you get near retirement age, your responsibilities decline, and then are exposed to such media again nearly a half a century later you find that the same-old actually had changed and is promoting a life style and culture that you are not comfortable with and take it as a threatening message.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Earlier episodes were based on classic sci-fi themes - radiation and chemical pollution causing things to mutate to huge sizes, alien invasions, or science experiments making things go wrong. Some of those pissed off the science, nuclear and chemical industries. So they are stuck with alien invasions and the classic enemies like Daleks, Cybermen and Sontarans.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[parkinglot777]

Perhaps you are just old.

Does it really matter? Some jokes may get old, some don't. It is just how they are presented, not what they are.

Re: BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the US, the burocracy is left wing, by definition that lets them thrive. Who is in office has a minimal impact on current affairs on none long term. There used to be a BBC comedy about this.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[fish_sauce]

Feminism and other political nonsense have also infected the show. I hate when politics infect a show. I groan every time I get slapped in the face with political correctness, feminism, etc. It destroys the show.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody forces you to watch it, you little anti-feminist crybaby. Watch Jackass instead and the problem is solved. It is and has always been entertaining when people complain about TV series they don't watch and don't like to watch.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course. You were a child, you have grown up. Adults do not like the things they liked as children. If they do, they should seek professional help.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[jellomizer]

Don't forget nostalgia blinders. The old joke or idea may just trigger an emotion of a happy time for you or a happy time within a painful time.
If you go to a concert of a long time loved musical band, and you find their take of that popular song you once loved is different. Is now somehow different, you just don't get the same emotional response then from the recording.

Re: BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

"burocracy is left wing
Can't wait to hear more of your penetrating insight about the left-wing "burocracy".

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

The propaganda is getting old.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Doctor Who hasn't been good since Colin Baker. Sylvester McCoy was ok I suppose, but that's when it started going downhill.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

It has become a god awful show with writing that makes me sick to the stomach. But then again it's no surprise if you compare it to the hot garbage that Hollywood dishes out these days with hacks like JJ Abrams. So Dr. Who certainly does have its fanbase which appears to be especially strong in online communities like reddit. I would dare to assume that a good portion of them probably pirates it as well for various reasons.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Whose fault is that really? I mean if you get tired of the same tropes being recycled over and over and over again?
Your fault for becoming aware of the fact and changing your views? The fault of writers who can't come up with at least somewhat original stuff? Maybe something else?
Maybe the question I'm asking doesn't make sense in this context. Maybe they simply cater for a different target audience that at least some people grow out of. But that would still be something that is caused by the creators of those shows. Because in the end they decide what their show will be and what not.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Oswald McWeany]

Feminism and other political nonsense have also infected the show. I hate when politics infect a show. I groan every time I get slapped in the face with political correctness, feminism, etc. It destroys the show.

Feminism: the belief that women should be treated equal to men.

So you're saying if a woman is treated equal to a man on a show it destroys the show? A show is only worth watching if women are treated like crap? OK... whatever floats your boat.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminism: the belief that women should be treated equal to men.

I'm pretty sure you just destroyed his Slashdot.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[t0rkm3]

I don't have dog in this fight, I listen to the Dr Who stuff when I have time...

However, I noticed that you constructed a nice straw man there. I wanted to stop by and admire the artistry involved in the simply ignorant and intentional misreading and misrepresentation of an opinion.

Like poo flung on a wall, it is awesome in it's own destructive simplicity.

Rather, you might restate the parent's position back to them to assist in the discourse.

"Did you mean that you feel that women are being shoehorned into a plot where they do not necessarily fit? In fact, it may cause a loss of continuity and flow of the temperament of the show when the protagonist is put in a gender reversed scenario?"

The scenario as presented above is an argument. It is provable that the BBC wants to provide propagandist support whenever possible to POC and women, it is one of their stated goals. Therefore, the argument is, "Is this good for the art?" or "Does reflect a loss of creativity caused by an echo chamber of political rhetoric?"

I believe the parent intends to argue that it does impact the art in a negative fashion and causes a loss of authenticity to the brand.

Re: BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

No, modern Feminism is just Chauvinism flipped around. It has nothing to do with equality.

As for the article, the Dread Pirate should just invoke the Right to be Forgotten, which the UK insists is a Fundamental Human Right.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[SCVonSteroids]

That's pretty much taking his words and warping them to mean what you want them to. If there's an active feud between the two of you, I'll understand... but hear me out...

His point is clear. When a popular [insert medium here] (think.. TV show, music, movies) shoves ANY propaganda in your face when it didn't typically use to, people generally aren't very accepting of it. Unless it's Family Guy, of course.

I never got the impression that he hated women or wanted to see them mistreated/degraded on TV.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is this modded up? Pretty sure you're trolling here.

But in case you really didn't get the OP:

"Feminism" used to mean "equality".

"Feminism" today tends to refer to "Third Wave Feminism", which is looking less and less interested in equality. For citations, have you not been paying attention for the last 4 or 5 years?

It's similar to how "Diversity" in the U.S.A. this decade is more and more starting to mean "Fuck White People".

Summed up, the intent is fine. The execution.....is leaving a lot to be desired.

Re: BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Rather, you might restate the parent's position back to them to assist in the discourse.

Perhaps you might ask the parent to restate their position instead. Did you think about doing that? Why haven't you considered that the parent's choice of phrasing reflects upon them quite clearly?

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[oh_my_080980980]

Or it could be the show sucks! Jesus christ candy ass it's absolutely possible that shows from 50 years can be better than show you see today. Just because something is new does not make it better.

Showed the show to my wife. She was never a fan. Showed her the classic episodes (Pertwee/Baker) and the new episodes with Matt Smith and Peter Capaldi. She did not like the new episodes. She much preferred the older ones.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[oh_my_080980980]

It works the other way moron. Things you liked as a child look horrible as an adult. You stop your pop psychology interpretations.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Oswald McWeany]

Why is this modded up? Pretty sure you're trolling here.

But in case you really didn't get the OP:

"Feminism" used to mean "equality".

"Feminism" today tends to refer to "Third Wave Feminism", which is looking less and less interested in equality. For citations, have you not been paying attention for the last 4 or 5 years?

It's similar to how "Diversity" in the U.S.A. this decade is more and more starting to mean "Fuck White People".

Summed up, the intent is fine. The execution.....is leaving a lot to be desired.

No, feminism still means equality. Misandry means hatred of men or promotion of women above men, and I won't disagree... some people are guilty of this. Diversity still means "diversity"; if a company is 100% black, hiring a white person would still be "diversity" in that company. The words still mean the same thing; the thing that has changed the most is some people are resisting the changes now that they are a little closer to realization than they once were.

I am a white male; I am pro feminism and diversity. I am still against misandry and racism against white people - but those are two completely different things and you can't really accuse the BBC of either of those things.

I can't speak for everyone, but I imagine a large number of anti "female doctor" are at least a little sexist. Now, if the show starts up and it is bashing men; I will apologise and join in the criticism- until then, nothing wrong has been done hiring a woman.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[UnknownSoldier]

"Political Correctness (aka, Political Censorship), is fascism pretending to be Manners."
-- George Carlin

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[shaitand]

"Then as you get near retirement age, your responsibilities decline, and then are exposed to such media again nearly a half a century later you find that the same-old actually had changed and is promoting a life style and culture that you are not comfortable with and take it as a threatening message."

In my mid-30's I can already tell you the slippery slope is real. We compromise one small thing at a time, become comfortable with the change as it becomes the new norm and then the next step feels like a small change from normal. In some ways it is very real and threatening. You look at personal liberties, privacy and their extreme decline. You look at the extreme positions we pretended were true because we agreed with their overall message and realize that society actually believes those things. They really think there are neo-nazi's on every block just waiting to beat them if they are gay or black and women think there are rapists around every corner.

As a child in a small town in backwater Illinois people thought racism was bad and didn't much care what people did in the privacy of their own bedrooms, my grandparents exposed me to a plethora of programming with this as the heart of it's message showing over and over again the closed minded racist antagonist discriminating against the different. People made jokes and slurs, especially in mixed groups and the same guy they called a jew bastard in jest and in anger they'd literally fight and bleed for the same as their other friends. Today that is a sacred right reserved for comedians and you are told these people are evil racists with hate in their heart on par with Nazi's. What is worse is that when someone with warmth and friendliness in their heart, possibly even a deep grained respect for the historical traditions of native culture calls someone an "injun" and you call them out as evil and attack them telling them they are racist even if they don't know it... well that sort of attack is exactly what WILL lead to thousands of Klan members and neo-nazis.

In the US you are allowed to openly hate men if they are white just for being white and men who grew up in the same economic conditions with the same education, the same broken home, the same drugs in the streets. You can discriminate against them if equally qualified for employment or education. We hire staff in publicly traded companies dedicated to making sure that too many of them aren't too successful. Why? Because straight white men are the scapegoats, they have no real connection to troubles of the past, nor does the situation of any other group in the present have any connection to those who were troubled int he past but when anything doesn't go your way we can blame them. Currently we are spreading a widescale eugenics effort by telling white women they are racist if they don't sleep with black men and spreading the idea they all have giant penises alongside spreading the idea that being cuckolded by black men is something sexy. Why ship people off to gas chambers when you can deny them education, employment, and encourage widespread social acceptance of breeding them out? Either way, you've got the populace good with hate and you can prop up your dictatorship on it just like hitler and the nazi party.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[orgelspieler]

I love that the AC accuses you of trolling, then pulls like three or four trolls into one post. Very classy. Good luck with these guys; they really believe that white men are totally oppressed by the (((liberals))). They see any attempt to right centuries of racism and sexism as some sort of personal slight against them, just because they have to compete on an almost level playing field.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[shaitand]

Feminism is not the belief that women should be treated equal to men. It is a term which defines itself as the movement for gender equality with a carefully chosen name from a group obsessed with words at the time, the name begs the question and equates promoting the interests of women as the same thing as gender equality.

Of course the movement runs into a bit of trouble in that most women have never wanted to be the browbeating asshole careerman or CEO they think women should be and most of the culture they fight against and propose as the evil "patriarchy" is actually the result of the matriarchy. So now the effort is largely about convincing women to not bond with or raise their children and to encourage brainwashing children to try to turn all our daughters into people who think this sort of lowlife bottom-dweller oppressor is someone to idolize.

Of course it is very hard to explain how the evil patriarchy didn't lock them all in mental asylums and begin executing them with their portrayal of the extreme situations where husbands were abusive as if they were commonly held and accepted events.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[easyTree]

I'm sure our secret leaders have our best interests at heart =)

Re: BBC can suck a BBC

[easyTree]

As we know, fundamental human rights are opt-in via longwinded legal process. Probably not what <deity> had in mind.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Equality - no problem if it works like the predefined operator=().

But recently the demands changed from "same pay for same work, irrespective of gender" to "same pay, irrespective of gender". I'm told that the Dutch(?) have renamed their "equality officers" to "same-position officers", a clear indication that they are to get women the same compensation and career options regardless of their actual performance.

I predict the goal posts will be shifted again when women net 50% of all wages, regardless of professions and work hours. Because women.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[sexconker]

Balderdash.

Then as you get older they become the same old thing over and over again.

By the time you reach your 50's and 60's such media is considered threatening to your way of life.

Pick one. Either it's always been the same old shit or it's new and scary and threatening to your old way of life.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[sexconker]

But don't they force you to PAY for it? The BBC is government-run, isn't it?

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[sexconker]

Feminism and other political nonsense have also infected the show. I hate when politics infect a show. I groan every time I get slapped in the face with political correctness, feminism, etc. It destroys the show.

Feminism: the belief that women should be treated equal to men.

So you're saying if a woman is treated equal to a man on a show it destroys the show? A show is only worth watching if women are treated like crap? OK... whatever floats your boat.

Feminism half a century ago was like that. "Feminism" today is a farce. It's so bad they had to retcon the whole thing and label feminism as "First Wave" feminism. Feminists of that era widely criticize and deride modern "Third Wave" "feminism" because it's lost the plot so badly. (With social media and the craziness it fuels, are we now in "Fourth Wave" "feminism"?)

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

So you're saying if a woman is treated equal to a man on a show it destroys the show? A show is only worth watching if women are treated like crap? OK... whatever floats your boat.

I need to explain this?
Ok, I'll explain this.

Most people who're irked from feminism arent at odds with the philosophy; rather, the application.

* Not enough women in STEM fields? People shitting their pants with righteous indignity over it.

* Not enough women in garbage collecting? Crickets.

* Negative assumptions about women? Hold on... buying Fruit of the Loom stock right now.

* Negative assumptions about men? Golf claps.

So what we have is "selective equality", which isn't equality. Ultimately, it's a power grab, done largely by public shaming. A common tactic these days.

Thing is, the public is easily led and fickle, so today's friend may be tomorrow's enemy per the mob.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Darinbob]

A female doctor adds more to the show. It is good for the art. It is not at all disparaging to men, despite the wailing and gnashing of teeth. It doesn't break any of the 'lore'. Joanna Lumley was always my favorite Doctor and absolutely fabulous in the role.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Feminism was accused of just that, in the whole and entirely, half a century ago, so what does that mean?

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

In the UK you also have to pay a recurring fee if you own a television and are receiving OTA broadcasts.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[fish_sauce]

Thank you. You understand it correctly. Slashdot need more people like you. Hugs~

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

[...] The TV Shows/Movies/Music when you were the ages of 8-18 just isn't as good anymore with a noticeable decline seeming to happen at ages 20-25.
By the time you reach your 50's and 60's such media is considered threatening to your way of life. [...]

Being a US-ian, what I consider threatening is seeing wrinkly old cleavage on nearly every damn TV channel. Yuk.

Re: BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as she is hot she can be a feminist

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

You are taking the stance that words are words and the meaning never changes. This is not in agreement with reality.

Gay used to mean happy. Hacker used to mean tech savvy programmer. Trolling did not used to mean "Saying things I disagree with", but more and more people are attempting to redefine it to be such. (see orgelspieler's reply to you for an example) Dictionaries are updated for a reason.

I can't speak for the BBC, but in general media the second half of this decade has been increasingly anti-male and borderline anti-white. If you're not seeing this, I daresay you're not in touch with contemporary reality. (Three of the best examples are Star Wars, Marvel, Gamergate)

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Anonymous Coward]

Who said I was a white male, and what part of what I said was trolling? Little hint, while lately people keep trying to redefine the term "trolling" to mean, "I disagree with what was said", we aren't quite there yet.

Tell me, how does affirmative action do anything besides foster continued bad sentiment? The ones being discriminated against are angry that less qualified are getting the job because of AA, the ones being discriminated for get overt acknowledgment they're getting favoritism because of their demographics instead of their raw ability. Both sides of the fence are harmed by this behavior and it will only continue to deepen the divides.

But I probably am making a mistake trying to argue with you about this subject. Something tells me you're in favor of "equality" at any cost.

The world we live in today: When even the most vague mention of a racial slur is uncovered, the guilty party is immediately fired, harassed, and otherwise ostracized. This is an excellent indicator that racism has lost a lot of its power, and we are already well on the way to its being largely relegated to the history books. Seeing as how it is very human for those that feel that they were wronged will not always stop at mere equality, it is important to keep in mind that equality needs to continue to mean equality and not something else.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[Snufu]

Your characterization is accurate that popular tropes in film, TV, and literature lose novelty and impact as one matures. Experience results in familiarity which results in decreasing interest. This is true across generations.

However, what has changed over the past few generations is increased emphasis on younger and younger audiences. There was a time not long ago when a significant fraction of commercial film, TV, and literature was aimed at adults. This is a genuine cultural shift, and not just old people saying "that's been done before." Today, more producers pitch "reboots" or unabashed remakes with the explicit strategy that it can be sold as an original experience to children and teenagers.

The end result is artistic stagnation.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[shaitand]

Ancient alien lizard people leaders without a doubt. I'm pretty sure I saw them on doctor who so they must be real.

Do you know what happens if you embrace rather than argue with those who say "All lives matter" in response to the "black lives matter" issue? Suddenly your message resonates rather than alienates the majority of people in this country and you have an unstoppable united front on the issue of police militarizing and killing civilians without consequence. Solving that issue for "all lives" also solves it for those who happen to have a bit more resistance to a sun burn. Instead our leaders want to stir it up, make the issue about an emotional issue of race and keep people divided while they continue to militarize our police and drive us slowly toward more and more of a police state.

Re:BBC can suck a BBC

[t0rkm3]

Fair statement. Perhaps, for the enlightenment of the original poster you could provide some points that reveal how you believe the woman in the role adds to the storyline.

- Not breaking the lore, +1
- Excellent actor/actress making the show more watchable, +1.

Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill Clinton gave us both Hillary and the DMCA.

Ouch.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Properly applied, the DMCA could actually give us all a means of protecting our personal information. But, who cares. Everyone's so focused on hating it that they can't bother thinking of ways to leverage it.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Properly applied, the DMCA could actually give us all a means of protecting our personal information. But, who cares. Everyone's so focused on hating it
that they can't bother thinking of ways to leverage it.

LOL.

Properly applied, fire is a wonderful tool.

That doesn't mean sitting a 3-year-old on top of a case of dynamite and handing him a fucking flamethrower is a good idea.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[zwarte piet]

But you'd be able to go on holidays outside of the school holiday season!

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

You've been allowed to hate Bill Clinton for decades now, your thoughts, such as they are, are free.

Wouldn't have been any different under Dukaksis or Tsongas though*, the law was passed by bipartisan margins in the House and with unanimous consent in the Senate, and it hasn't been significantly changed in any way since despite decades of opportunity.

The corporations got what they wanted from WIPO. They had enough politicians in their pocket across the world that blaming Bill Clinton is like blaming Mrs. O'Leary's cow.

(*maybe Perot, but who knows what that nut job would have done? It isn't like he wouldn't kowtow to his corporate masters himself.)

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, you want to outlaw fire?

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[jellomizer]

The DMCA tended to put too much responsibility on the content storage company then the individual copyright violator.

Yes it is easier to target the storage company vs the violator. But it doesn't solve the problem, of the violation, and it just shifts where they go.

Re:Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[DigiShaman]

https://reason.com/blog/2018/0...

Then you'll really hate what the Senate Democrats have in mind.

Re:Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[JackieBrown]

I wish any of that was surprising.

It's like the Patriot Act. Politicians always use a crisis (manufactured or not) to rip away or freedoms in the guise of protecting us.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it was privacy advocates the one who lobbied for tha DMCA, and not the copyright mafia...

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[DontBeAMoran]

That doesn't mean sitting a 3-year-old on top of a case of dynamite and handing him a fucking flamethrower is a good idea.

It depends. Is it a "Not A Flamethrower" by The Boring Company?

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Depends on what you're talking about - notice and takedown is good, digital locks bad.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, it was privacy advocates the one who lobbied for tha DMCA, and not the copyright mafia...

BULLSHIT.
The DMCA is the implementation of a treaty of the WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION

Re:Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[DigiShaman]

Duh! Of course. It's the natural state of mankind. Anywhere you have consolidated power, the MO of those within that power is to ensure it's both maintained and limited to just themselves. That means authoritarianism and oppression. None of this is new, and in fact 100% to be expected. It's literally coded in our DNA.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it doesn't. Once your info is out, it's out. Protection implies that there's something you can do to stop bad things happening. What a DMCA allows you to do is to legally respond under some circumstances. The DMCA is to your privacy what the police are to criminal acts: a response, not a prevention method.

We all know how effective legal deterrants are: very slightly at best.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, in that situation, it's only bad because you've given a 3 year old a flame thrower. Hit dynamite with fire all you want, it won't explode unless there's a blasting cap attached to it. light pure nitroglycerin with a match and prepare to be underwhelmed. Smokeless powder gives a better show. Now give it a good hard shock, and now that's impressive.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

But it doesn't solve the problem, of the violation, and it just shifts where they go.

That's a common criticism, but I think it misses some important points. For one thing, the damage caused by copyright infringement is related to the scale of the infringement. When everyone used to copy cassette tapes and swap them at school, it was time-consuming to make those copies and they didn't spread very fast. In the online era, one popular source can rapidly distribute an infringing work to many more people. Moreover, those popular sources are often monetising their behaviour. It doesn't seem unreasonable to me that they should bear some additional responsibility in light of their additional influence.

Someone who is willing to give away an infringing work from their own personal site can still do so, and they won't then be subject to DMCA takedown notices in the same way... but they will also be paying the bills for hosting, which will quickly limit how much distribution actually happens in most cases, and they will be personally liable for damages when the infringement lawsuit arrives.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

Whoosh. Submit your sarcasm detector for maintenance, as it is clearly broken.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

The DMCA is simply a legal tool which absolves corporations of responsibility for "piracy" and tells the Federal government they should punish people. The more rational alternative is that corporations would be responsible for pursuing "pirates" in civil court.

Corporations use the DMCA as a crutch so they don't need to use actual security, as a shield for their horrible business practices (like locking down data and devices you buy) and as a security force so they don't need to pay real researches to find people. DMCA provides zero protections for individuals.

Please take your "personal information" BS and shove it where the BBS can't find it. It should be easy. Apparently they can't find shit.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[easyTree]

What the hell? How are airlines to make a living if they're not able to exploit your lack of choice as a parent?

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[1ucius]

>The more rational alternative is that corporations would be responsible for pursuing "pirates" in civil court.

The internet wouldn't and couldn't exist with your rule. No ISP would be willing to shoulder that burden (i.e., contributory/vicarious infringement) without the DMCA's liability shields. And there was no way you'd ever get those shields without notice-and-takedown.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Lonewolf666]

When everyone used to copy cassette tapes and swap them at school, it was time-consuming to make those copies and they didn't spread very fast

Actually I wonder why this is not more common in the day of the external hard disk. You could copy your terabyte large collection onto a single disk and lend it to a friend.
I would totally do this if I had more people among my acquaintances who like a mix of metal and classical music.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[jwhyche]

That doesn't mean sitting a 3-year-old on top of a case of dynamite and handing him a fucking flamethrower is a good idea.

Depends on what your end game is. If your hoping the 3 year old will set off the dynamite by setting it on fire, then your out of luck. Dynamite doesn't explode when burnt, but it does burn very nicely. So if you want to have a really nice fire then, there you go.

Re: Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[zwarte piet]

Beats me. I can't even figure out how some of these airlines manage to pay their fuel bills as things are.

Re:Can I really hate Bill Clinton now?

[Anonymous Coward]

A: Did the Doctor leak?
B: Doctor Who?
A: Yes!

WTF?

[Charlotte]

Is this the level of comments nowadays?

Re:WTF?

[Faluzeer]

Is this the level of comments nowadays?

These days? It has been like for quite some time, certainly over a decade. This actually looks better than normal, so far there is very little spam.

Re:WTF?

[beaker_72]

Is this the level of comments nowadays?

Sadly yes, the comments are barely worth reading any more

Re:WTF?

[Greyfox]

Something something Natalie Portman's Hot Grits :-P

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

You ignore the nonsense, post a quality comment, which somebody else is sure to deem as trash of course. Somebody might comment that, which could lead to a reasonable multiparty conversation. Isn't that the way it works on a public place as well?

Re:WTF?

[Highdude702]

appy app ludite hot DAMN grits?

Re:WTF?

[Highdude702]

shit forgot to add moo cow

Re: WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe that is what he/she meant

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

This. Also, mod the below up so the mods "get it".

I think it was right around the time BIZX LLC bought slashdot and began astroturfing with feminism and global warming articles that came out every single day that the readership left. At first they bought it, then they had their "wait a minute" moment, then they began really hammering the topics and BIZX's mods did not like the idea of a site where their advertisers paid them to astroturf and the readership resoundingly rejected each article they posted every time, irregardless of how they tried to sway the comments. The readership then left. That readership was necissary to manage the comments section and keep the army of trolls at bay as their comments would get downvoted to zero quickly then buried. You used to be able to assume a score of -1 or 0 wasn't worth the time to read and really the comments are what draws people to this site. Today, BIZX has mods who delete posts at their own whim, including ones like this one that they don't like or don't jive with their own opinions.

This is also a losing game for the Mods. The number of posts from the troll army is inversly proportional to the pagerank and only begins to die down once the pagerank nears zero. But that that point, the mod is out of a job, as is the astroturfer. Site has been losing traffic for a long while now.

With all that said, again I'll state it. Nobody cares about what the BBC Wants or their plight. Due to the long copyright terms and the fact large businesses own such a warchest of content, existing copyright laws demonstratably do not enrich the public domain and demonstratably restrict scientific and cultural innovation and thus are not in the interest of the vast majority of the public. This situation is something the BBC and every large media corp wants, it keeps small entrants from entering the market and out-competing them.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hot grits are dead, Netcraft confirms it.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

FreeBSD is dead. Move along.

Re:WTF?

[Anonymous Coward]

OMG imagine a Beowulf cluster of ponies!

Re:WTF?

[datavirtue]

...and I have to browse 0/-1 to find some of the really good, insightful ones. Still nothing near as shitty as Ars or reddit.

Valerie Jarrett == Planet of the Apes

[Anonymous Coward]

Monkey face woman. Chimpout of Hillary. Monkey Woman.

Re:Valerie Jarrett == Planet of the Apes

[Anonymous Coward]

Is she in Doctor Who? That's one way to save on the makeup and prosthetics budget I guess. What's the plot of this story, that she acts as key liaison to the enemy for a treasonous leader?

Good luck with that

[Errol backfiring]

In this specific case, I suspect it was a timelord trying to warn us against the consequences of the DMCA. But if you really want to, you could try to visit the time traveller's convention.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

In this specific case, I suspect it was a timelord trying to warn us against the consequences of...

... casting a female for politically correct rather than legitimate narrative purposes. This lawsuit is a pitiful attempt at publicity, as if anyone who isn't a SJW is interested in watching this show.

Re:Good luck with that

[giggleloop]

Please, point me to the part of Dr Who lore that says upon regeneration, the doctor must be male? It's more interesting that you find the mere presence of a woman on your screen to be such a political and subversive act... How do you make the magic box go bright using the pointy-clicker?

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wanted to attend the time traveller's convention, but I missed it.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

If it were not done for political reasons, why do it now? Why wasn't it done between 2005 and 2012? Did you miss the cultural shift where the public widely reject the "progressive" ideology of the elite?

How do you make the magic box go bright using the pointy-clicker?

I don't. You keep right on filing your empty mind with the vacuous propaganda emanating from your "magic box".

Re:Good luck with that

[jellomizer]

Why do you automatically assume that a female doctor added to the show was there to be politically correct?
I mean we had only two words from her official debut. In terms of narrative purposes We already had 12 (or is it 13) Changes in actors that bring a different take to the character the Doctor.
Grumpy, Hobo, Super Spy, Bohemian, Jock, Egotist, Strategist, ..., Warrior, Resentful, Vengeful, Goofball, and Unsure.

Lately narrative can write Female Hero's who are not so stereotypical and more general human. Where the gender is who they are, but not what guides the stories.

Even a decade ago, it would had been politically correct to make a female doctor. But I doubt they would had been able to write a good one, with companions such as Rose and Martha showing the pitfalls in popular narrative of the time. However I think they are getting much better now, and can keep a compelling narrative with a female doctor now.

Re:Good luck with that

[JackieBrown]

It's sad that they didn't think a show about a woman TimeLord would be good enough to stand on its own. Instead, they had to transgender the Doctor into a woman to try to keep the old fans plus the news ones that would be thrilled with this.

I don't think anyone is saying the mere presence of a woman is political and subversive but it says a lot about you that you think that is the issue.

I enjoy Blindspot, Buffy, Dollhouse, Alias, Fringe, the 100 etc. Most shows nowadays have a strong female lead.

Re:Good luck with that

[Pyramid]

..because it's the BBC...

Re:Good luck with that

[Slyfox696]

If it were not done for political reasons, why do it now? Why wasn't it done between 2005 and 2012?

Why not do it now? Why is 2005-2012 somehow better than now? There is nothing in Dr. Who lore which says a Time Lord male cannot regenerate into a female (in fact, quite the opposite given The Master/Missy). So...aside from her being a woman, exactly what problem do you have with this?

Did you miss the cultural shift where the public widely reject the "progressive" ideology of the elite?

Casting actresses in a show is a "progressive ideology of the elite"? Perhaps in the 1700s, but it hasn't been for quite some time. You should look into making the leap into the 20th century. Being only 100 years behind the rest of us seems as if it would be an improvement for you.

Re:Good luck with that

[Oswald McWeany]

Please, point me to the part of Dr Who lore that says upon regeneration, the doctor must be male?

It's more interesting that you find the mere presence of a woman on your screen to be such a political and subversive act... How do you make the magic box go bright using the pointy-clicker?

I believe that Dr. Who is one of the few shows which CAN get away with switching the gender of the lead star at it being acceptable to canon.

Now, I do hope the doctor was chosen because she was perceived by Chibnal to be the best person for the job, and not only for being a woman. Jodie Whittaker is certainly a talented actress and I'm sure she can pull it off. As long as the show isn't all about feminism and female empowerment nothing has changed- you just have a talented female reprising the role that had been filled by an annoying Scottish man most recently.

Re:Good luck with that

[AmiMoJo]

They were trying to revamp the show because it was getting stale. The standard method for doing that is to change showrunner and writing team (check) and introduce some new elements (check).

What's strange is why it's such a big deal to people. The Doctor is an alien, largely sexless and uninterested in relationships... The biggest change will be how other people react to her, rather than anything she does I think.

It's not even a new idea, we had all this decades ago in Star Trek with Trill characters. And they often did focus on their relationships. Maybe it's because the internet was less of a thing back then, but I don't remember the backlash against it at the time. It was just an interesting idea to be explored. The spin off idea is probably a non-starter just because the BBC doesn't have the money and the main series is in need to saving anyway.

Perhaps you can explain, what is lost or lessened by having a female doctor?

Re:Good luck with that

[datavirtue]

Those shows are flat and cringy.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

It's sad that they didn't think a show about a woman TimeLord would be good enough to stand on its own.

Interesting that you believe that about them. Though they have done spin-offs with female leads before, so no, you can't assume that. However, in this case, it's different. It's about the Doctor.

Instead, they had to transgender the Doctor into a woman to try to keep the old fans plus the news ones that would be thrilled with this.

Nope. They chose to consider what the Doctor, an established character would be like, if changed into, well, a female, for reasons of their own. Of course, the show being Doctor Who, not say, the Time Lord(s), kinda made them do that in the first place back in the beginning, so they're just continuing the tradition.

Why are you so opposed to that? Why do you hate them so much? Why do you not want to see them expand their options with their existing narrative concept? It'd be one thing if you stuck to criticism of their eventual story, but your opposition is towards the premise.

I don't think anyone is saying the mere presence of a woman is political and subversive but it says a lot about you that you think that is the issue.

Yep, what they're doing is saying what you're saying, or variations and extensions thereof. Aghast opposition to the idea which reflects more on your own thinking than theirs.

Was also the case for Janeway, Sisko, Annie, the 12 Angry Men, and even Spiderman.

I enjoy Blindspot, Buffy, Dollhouse, Alias, Fringe, the 100 etc.

And yet you are still dismissive of this instance here, aren't you?

Most shows nowadays have a strong female lead.

You'll want to check your statistics.

Re:Good luck with that

[JackieBrown]

I don't get why you don't find it strange and how you can't see the political angle of it. It wasn't until the master changed to a woman that changing of sex was even a possibility. That is with 50 years plus of Doctor Who history. The idea that it's not a new simply because he is an alien is bogus. We were told he was a father. For a sexless species, you'd think they'd have a more gender neutral term or simply said he was a parent.

And if it's no big deal, then why would the characters in the show react any different to the Doctor as a woman than any other new Who?

Re:Good luck with that

[JackieBrown]

I'd be just as upset if they changed Buffy to a guy after she came back from the dead. Even if the excuse was "the story was stale with a woman in that role."

Re:Good luck with that

[JackieBrown]

You didn't like Buffy or Fringe?

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

No. Joss Whedon is the very definition of overrated. If it weren't for the simpering Buffy fanboys no one would ever care about that worthless hack. I hope you retards enjoy your YASS QUEEN SLAY Buffy reboot. Too bad ol' Jossy is going to be ripped a new one for not making Buffy neuro-atypical transgender paraplegic.

Re:Good luck with that

[yuriklastalov]

As long as the show isn't all about feminism and female empowerment nothing has changed- you just have a talented female reprising the role that had been filled by an annoying Scottish man most recently.

The likelihood of this happening is practically zero. There will be numerous occasions where the Doctor will lament people not taking her seriously because "muh soggy knees" and every other "strong female protagonist" trope they lifted straight out of TV Tropes. Expect some "jokes" about "you wouldn't hit a woman", "I can do anything you can do but better", and all the other bullshit we've been subjected to since the 70s. I'll bet they even work a mansplaining line in at least once.

There is just no way this show won't be a mess self-indulgent feminist/progressive bullshit. It largely was, already, and having muh strong female lead will just give them every excuse to turn it up to 11.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

They just changed her to black, instead. Expect "YASS QUEEN SLAY!!!" to be uttered in the pilot episode.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

They were trying to revamp the show because it was getting stale. The standard method for doing that is to change showrunner and writing team (check) and introduce some new elements (check).

What's strange is why it's such a big deal to people. The Doctor is an alien, largely sexless and uninterested in relationships... The biggest change will be how other people react to her, rather than anything she does I think.

It's not even a new idea, we had all this decades ago in Star Trek with Trill characters. And they often did focus on their relationships. Maybe it's because the internet was less of a thing back then, but I don't remember the backlash against it at the time. It was just an interesting idea to be explored. The spin off idea is probably a non-starter just because the BBC doesn't have the money and the main series is in need to saving anyway.

Perhaps you can explain, what is lost or lessened by having a female doctor?

Perhaps you can explain, what is gained or enhanced by having a female doctor?

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd be just as upset if they changed Buffy to a guy after she came back from the dead.

Your failure to be upset when it already happened makes you seem less than honest. You already had your chance to protest, and yet...you phrased it as speculative. Why aren't you upset already? Perhaps you're just ignorant though. It's very difficult to believe.

Even if the excuse was "the story was stale with a woman in that role."

So you wouldn't want to view the story because "It'd be interesting to see what would happen when the Slayer was male" or even "Let's have a body-hopping gender-bender experience" for an episode so you would automatically tune it out.

Is that what you're saying? Because it seems you're covering your ears and eyes so you don't have to see it.

I'd consider it more of an opportunity myself, and not be opposed to the idea on false principles, especially purported ones that are hard to believe. You just lack authenticity to your actions. You should probably work on that.

Also to answer your other post since you mention more there.

I don't get why you don't find it strange and how you can't see the political angle of it.

To AmiMoJo, it's strange that it's a "big deal" as the colloquialism goes, to be so opposed to it. That is quite different. Do you understand the concept? Do you just not know the phrase? It's quite important.

It wasn't until the master changed to a woman that changing of sex was even a possibility. That is with 50 years plus of Doctor Who history.

Nope, it was always a possibility, they never precluded it. The advantages of observing what's in writing, versus what it leaves open as an opportunity. This is an established practice in Doctor Who, so again, your choosing to object now casts doubts on you.

The idea that it's not a new simply because he is an alien is bogus.

It's not new. It's a common idea. As AmiMoJo specifically mentioned, it has occurred in other shows already. You seem to have a comprehension issue going here. Try reading people more fully and responding more effectively.

We were told he was a father. For a sexless species, you'd think they'd have a more gender neutral term or simply said he was a parent.

Sorry, but you will just have to accept that the show is written in English, and people habituate themselves to using such convenient terms without necessarily deciding otherwise. Especially since it's entirely possible the supposed children came from the Loom, an established non-sexual reproductive system. Which could make a female Time Lord from two men.

And if it's no big deal, then why would the characters in the show react any different to the Doctor as a woman than any other new Who?

Because they'd be written to do so, if desired for a particular story or scene. It would be quite legitimate in many circumstances you know, to explore the differences in gender. What with actual treatment of people differing based on perceived gender. Or Race. Or anything else that can come up.

You still need to answer the questions posed of you though, don't pretend you aren't being noticed avoiding them.

Do you want them repeated to you?

Re: Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you can explain, what is gained or enhanced by having a female doctor?

Perhaps nothing other than a casting opportunity. Perhaps a lot of exposure of human elements of thinking. Why don't we wait and see what the writers do?

Re:Good luck with that

[oh_my_080980980]

Because people were saying it was about time for a female doctor. Take your head out of your ass and read sometime.

A female doctor does not make a compelling story. It's patronizing. They are saying we can't create an original female lead we need to based one on a existing male character. Gender bending is mental masturbation. It's done to titillate, not to be creative.

Re:Good luck with that

[Oswald McWeany]

As long as the show isn't all about feminism and female empowerment nothing has changed- you just have a talented female reprising the role that had been filled by an annoying Scottish man most recently.

The likelihood of this happening is practically zero. There will be numerous occasions where the Doctor will lament people not taking her seriously because "muh soggy knees" and every other "strong female protagonist" trope they lifted straight out of TV Tropes. Expect some "jokes" about "you wouldn't hit a woman", "I can do anything you can do but better", and all the other bullshit we've been subjected to since the 70s. I'll bet they even work a mansplaining line in at least once.

There is just no way this show won't be a mess self-indulgent feminist/progressive bullshit. It largely was, already, and having muh strong female lead will just give them every excuse to turn it up to 11.

Let's wait until they show the first episode before we write the script for them. I'm sure there will be some light-hearted jokes on the matter, for sure; and there's nothing wrong with that. They've already had jokes at the expense of both England and Scotland with their Scottish actors on-board. Nothing to offend anyone. If they turn it into a "let's bash men" show then we have a reason to complain, but so far I have no evidence that they have, so there's nothing for anyone to complain about.

Re: Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

You're weird

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not do it now? Why is 2005-2012 somehow better than now?

Pre Gamergate.

There is nothing in Dr. Who lore which says a Time Lord male cannot regenerate into a female (in fact, quite the opposite given The Master/Missy).

Let's celebrate a character as a sociopath?

So...aside from her being a woman, exactly what problem do you have with this?

Equity espousing SJW types are sociopaths, there is no intellectual basis for their politics only vacuous dogma and group-think. Princess Leia, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Conner... There was never any big deal about female characters (or race) until identity politics. Now we have paper thin, poorly motivated and overpowered characters like the chick in Star Wars. It's nothing other than political grandstanding and everything the SJW's touch turns to shit as a result. This is why it's an issue now and why people are calling it out and rejecting it.

Re:Good luck with that

[AmiMoJo]

I wouldn't get to hung up on language. Who knows what the Time Lord language is like, maybe there is no concept of gender or maybe the convention is to use whatever the current incarnation is.

More over, Who canon is contradictory and unclear. The writers do what they like, it's always been that way.

Being female could create a different dynamic with her companions, and with the people she meets. Through much of Earth's history women have played very different roles in society. This was addressed in the last series where Bill found herself in a time when people with dark skin were slaves. They didn't make a huge deal out of it, but didn't ignore it either.

Certainly better than the black Queen character they did. I'm hopeful they will do a good job with this.

Re:Good luck with that

[jwdb]

Equity espousing SJW types are sociopaths, there is no intellectual basis for their politics only vacuous dogma and group-think. Princess Leia, Ellen Ripley, Sarah Conner... There was never any big deal about female characters (or race) until identity politics. Now we have paper thin, poorly motivated and overpowered characters like the chick in Star Wars. It's nothing other than political grandstanding and everything the SJW's touch turns to shit as a result. This is why it's an issue now and why people are calling it out and rejecting it.

It is yet to be seen if the new Doctor will be a Lea/Ripley/Conner or a Rei. There have been thinly-written female characters as of late, but neither are all of them universally thin, nor are all future ones necessarily going to be thin. If 13 turns out to be thin then feel free to call her out, but you have no basis for doing so yet, do you?

Attacking a character as poorly written before we've even seen them in action reeks of agenda having nothing to do with the actual character.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

but you have no basis for doing so yet, do you?

A lacklustre teaser, the sociopolitical backdrop of the casting and storylines that have sucked for years.

Re:Good luck with that

[OverlordQ]

> It wasn't until the master changed to a woman that changing of sex was even a possibility.

Wrong.

http://tardis.wikia.com/wiki/T...

Re:Good luck with that

[Darinbob]

Maybe in the past it was politics that insisted a show's lead must always be a man?

Re:Good luck with that

[Darinbob]

Don't forget Rowan Atkinson regenerating into Joanna Lumley. Though this was done as a joke, the idea was definitely out there for a few decades.

The characters may react differently to the Doctor as a woman because most of the characters are human and grew up with preconceived notions.

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

The opportunity of showing the Doctor's male companion having loving feelings towards the Doctor without freaking out the more conservative audience? The opportunity for the Doctor to make jokes and astute observations related to the female condition, life and physical attributes? It's all up to the writers.

Re:Good luck with that

[Darinbob]

In the sixties it would have been called Nurse Who? And the Brigadier would have said "quiet please, the men are talking!"

Re:Good luck with that

[painandgreed]

It wasn't until the master changed to a woman that changing of sex was even a possibility.

Moffet had introduced the possiblity years ahead of that. The eleventh doctor checking to see if he was still male in 2011 after regenerating. Refering to another time lord who had been female in two regenerations in 2012. The Sisters of Karn saying they could make the doctor regenerate as female in 2013. Then the Master in 2014.

Re:Good luck with that

[NoNonAlphaCharsHere]

Just playing devil's advocate here, but try to imagine the reaction if Dr. Who (or, say, Romana) had traditionally been female, and were suddenly switched to male...

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

Regarding Star Trek, the Trill don't actually change gender. Instead, the host dies and the symbiont is placed in a new host. For example, the transition from Jadzia Dax to Ezri Dax was because Jadzia was killed but the Dax symbiont survived and received a new host. The transition from Curzon Dax to Jadzia Dax was because Curzon died and the new host, Jadzia, happened to be the opposite gender from Curzon. Your overall point, however, is valid.

As for Doctor Who, the show was revamped several times during its original run. That was generally a good thing, resulting in distinctly different eras that were fresh. They had started to do that once again with Sylvester McCoy and the show was getting better before it was cancelled.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that changing the Doctor's gender is what the show needs to fix its issues. The classic Doctor Who suggested the Doctor was no ordinary Timelord. Moffat took that to absurd proportions, making mostly everything in the universe revolve around the Doctor. He basically turned the character into a god rather than a time traveler who just happens to stumble into interesting situations and tries to resolve them. The Moffat era was just a confusing mess. The stories were less compelling and less interesting. Many have said the show always seemed to be building toward a big plot event but it never really happened.

The best thing would be to get away from pretty much everything Moffat did and return the show to what it was before. I have no problem with the Doctor regenerating as a female, but that won't fix what Moffat did. Make the stories more compelling and not about the Doctor essentially being a god. I'd also like to see more two and three part stories, and having four or five stories each season with more depth to them just like classic Doctor Who. Instead of roughly 12 stories each season, focus on having four or five really good ones.

Re:Good luck with that

[AmiMoJo]

It's funny, I was hopeful when Moffat took over but he turned out to be worse than Davies. As you say, always seeming to build towards something that never came.

Re:Good luck with that

[Areyoukiddingme]

It's not even a new idea, we had all this decades ago in Star Trek with Trill characters. And they often did focus on their relationships. Maybe it's because the internet was less of a thing back then, but I don't remember the backlash against it at the time.

It helped that Terry Farrell was both super hot and a decent actress. It also helped that it was an occasional side plot with not-incompetent writing, and that the male version of the character had not previously appeared in any Star Trek show, rather than being a replacement of the title character. Whether or not the BBC's writing will be competent remains to be seen.

Stargate SG-1 also had a species that body-swapped, more parasitic than symbiotic, but still the same concept. The Goa'uld apparently had a marked preference for same-sex hosts, I think mostly to cater to being a 44 minute TV show, where changing of hosts (actors) is already difficult enough to keep track of, but it was also built into the back-story. When the Goa'uld were impersonating Egyptian gods, they had to take multiple hosts as old hosts aged and died, and apparently most of them stuck with the same sex, as for instance Ra is definitely a male god, and Bast definitely isn't.

Sex fluid characters are a very old concept. In ancient times, they mostly appeared in religious fantasies, with dozens of deities that changed sex in the various pantheons of the world. In the modern era, they mostly appeared in science fiction and fantasy, and the subject treatment ranged from excellent to execrable. Now that the mainstream has started seeing it, somehow it's all new and controversial—and the writing is getting much worse.

Re:Good luck with that

[JackieBrown]

I do agree Moffett has been setting the stage for this throughout his tenure

Re:Good luck with that

[JackieBrown]

I was hoping for the same. I think he pulled it off with Smith who I honestly thought I was going to hate. There were a few clunkers but that's to be expected. Overall, the one I was least excited for became my favorite.

It's funny because I was looking forward to the doctor that replaced him but I could barely finish his first series.

It's possible you are correct and it got stale. I found it to dreary and felt it lost its fun factor. I like gritty shows and doctor who always seem to find that good balance until the last doctor

Re:Good luck with that

[Anonymous Coward]

13 was announced in 2017, isn't it about time for her to regenerate into somebody else by now?

Re:Good luck with that

[jwdb]

A lacklustre teaser, the sociopolitical backdrop of the casting and storylines that have sucked for years.

Again, you have no idea yet whether or not the backdrop will have any impact on her performance. I'm hoping she'll do fine despite it. Don't judge a book by its cover, eh?

As far as bad storylines, that's both debatable (I'd disagree, but to each his own) and, considering that the storylines you're referring to were with male actors, it has nothing to do with a woman being cast.

Jeezis

[zwarte piet]

I'm still waiting for season 10 to appear. Forever it seems.

Re:Jeezis

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2HSbfeXeBs
Why waste your time with kid's stuff when you can watch this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2HSbfeXeBs for free?

Waste of money

[MrL0G1C]

BBC is exceptionally good at wasting money. What way to better waste money than to go to the ends of the earth trying to prosecute someone who is effectively adding to hype about your show. What are they even going to do when they find out who the leaker is, can't really do much beyond fire them if they're here in the UK. Civil damages? 1p would more than cover it.

AKA get a fucking life BBC and stop wasting public money.

Re:Waste of money

[MrL0G1C]

PS "A 53-second clip"

53 fucking seconds.

Re: Waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC is just acting like almost every other corporation out there. Even the vaunted Baen (which specifically released media to the public share) made efforts to shut down some distribution after their own mistakes.

Besides, if you want something repugnant to complain about, there are better examples. Now that's something that matters.

Re:Waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

53 seconds of an as yet, not released show. So it's likely 100% spoilers.

Re:Waste of money

[mwvdlee]

Who says they're spending lots of money on this? They really don't need to spend any serious money on this to still get all the press coverage they could dream of.

Re:Waste of money

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Amy Pond came back and she and the Doctor finally became the lovers we always knew they were.

Re:Waste of money

[jellomizer]

Compared to American shows, BBC tends to be low volume only a few episodes per season. So they need to make sure each episode really counts.
There is enough hype about the show. But a 1 minute clip taken out of context which may or may not be actually in the final cut. Can give the viewers the wrong impression of the show.

Lets say for the 10th doctor release they showed the "Timelord Victorious" speech. Where in the story shows the doctor at his lowest and most vulnerable. Would make him seem like a villain not the hero.

Re:Waste of money

[AmiMoJo]

They have to do this. Doctor Who is one of their big money makers that they sell abroad. If they don't protect their intellectual property the TV networks they sell too will find it less attractive. That sweet season opening with a brand new female doctor that is bound to attract a bigger than usual audience will be ruined if there are too many leaks.

Re:Waste of money

[datavirtue]

Blah blah blah blah blah blah

Apologizing for the BBC cause they can't generate meaningful content at a modern cadence that stands on its own?

Re: Waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not a corporation, they are funded by an ever increasing TV tax. They have zero competition, they have negligible oversight and report to no-one. They're acting like civil servants / govt officials that know they have a job for life, golden pensions, and plenty of paid 5-star overseas trips.

Despite all this, they still claim over 40% of their income is used on advertising. Yes, they advertise their own programming on their own media and charge themselves for it. Even more bizarre is that they rarely make their own programming now, instead they commission it to a select few production companies (run and owned by former BBC management), who end up owning the product and copyright - even though the public paid for it.

Time to slash the TV tax to 20% of its current level, and put the BBC back onto their original mandate with a view to ending it. While at the same time letting them generate income via iplayer subs to those living outside the UK, and discounted for locals until the TV tax is gone.

Re:Waste of money

[MrL0G1C]

Getting the videos taken down as they did is good enough. Asking for details on the leakers is good enough. The rest is overkill for a 53 second clip. If people are fanatical about Dr Who then they will watch it anyway. If they're not fanatical about Dr Who then they very likely will never see the clip. All BBC has to do is say the clip is not representative of the final cut.

Re:Waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

To create that scenario is 100% worth every British tax payer pound that can be squeezed from the peasants and the bourgeoisie.

Re:Waste of money

[oh_my_080980980]

Oh snap!

Re: Waste of money

[Anonymous Coward]

They're not a corporation, they are funded by an ever increasing TV tax.

They are, in fact, a corporation, it is literally their nature by fact of the name.

They have zero competition, they have negligible oversight and report to no-one.

They have six direct competitors, they regularly report to Parliament, and they have been criticized regularly.

They're acting like civil servants / govt officials that know they have a job for life, golden pensions, and plenty of paid 5-star overseas trips.

That describes the honchos at other corporations quite well.

Despite all this, they still claim over 40% of their income is used on advertising. Yes, they advertise their own programming on their own media and charge themselves for it. Even more bizarre is that they rarely make their own programming now, instead they commission it to a select few production companies (run and owned by former BBC management), who end up owning the product and copyright - even though the public paid for it.

That model was imported from the US. Feel free to complain over the outsourcing idea.

Time to slash the TV tax to 20% of its current level, and put the BBC back onto their original mandate with a view to ending it.

Your argument presumes a conclusion.

While at the same time letting them generate income via iplayer subs to those living outside the UK, and discounted for locals until the TV tax is gone.

That'll upset the overseas licensees.

Re:Waste of money

[Cederic]

They know that someone with access to confidential materials is willing and able to share them outside the corporation.

I'd want to find out who that is, and revoke their access. Wouldn't you?

Re:Waste of money

[MrL0G1C]

It's a matter of degree, I don't think it's worth paying lawyers a load of money over a 53 second clip. An episode yes, a few seconds, no.

They would have done enough by sending a strictly worded threatening memo to all staff under suspicion that they could be fired and prosecuted. Take-downs of the clip also appear to have been fairly successful.

Re:Waste of money

[Cederic]

How much do companies spend securing their systems, protecting confidential information, complying with various contracts around disclosure and data protection and obeying the law?

Yet you think they should allow all of that expense and investment to go to waste by ignoring a threat vector that bypasses the lot of it? I don't.

Re:Waste of money

[MrL0G1C]

Straw man, I didn't say they should ignore a 'threat vector'. I said what action they should take - action that costs less and is relative to the size of the problem.

People are going nuts about copyright these days, I find it sad, remember it is a right granted by us the public. And in the UK it's us that are paying for BBCs programs to be made. They do an extremely poor job selling those programs globally, perhaps they are focusing their energy wrong, this witch-hunt is an example of that.

BBC worldwide is far worse than any 'threat vector' for doing a really bad job of selling the content it makes worldwide.

managers are silly

[Anonymous Coward]

Manager "I don't want to know or care that its impossible, just make it so, stomps foot like a child."

Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

"... the BBC requested a DMCA subpoena targeted at a OneDriver user ..."

What's OneDriver? Uber competition? So that narrows it down to the perp being someone with a smartphone and a car who's okay with strangers farting and vomiting all over their ride?

Re: Huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

OneDrive, you know, something Microsoft would be apropos to in a lawsuit.

British TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only one wondering why a British TV series was having production work done in the US?

Re: British TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Possibly. I don't even see that idea mentioned in the articles linked here, what production company did the BBC hire?

Re:British TV

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a co-production with BBC America. They think they're making Hollywood level content and in fairness:- they are on an equal footing with the garbage tier movies Hollywood has churned out for the past decade.

Re:British TV

[jellomizer]

Probably because the rest of us understands how how globalization works.

Hollywood is a world renown for being a hub for movie and television production. They have a lot of talent concentrated in one spot. Vs the BBC who in general known for cheesy effects and production problems. Just compare Red Dwarf with Start Trek: The Next Generation in terms of production.

 

Re:British TV

[Oswald McWeany]

Am I the only one wondering why a British TV series was having production work done in the US?

A lot of American film has work done in British studios. A lot of British film has work done in American studios. The industry has been internationalized for decades. Americans have been using Pinewood studios since the early days of TV and the British have been taking advantage of expertise in Hollywood- if you pay attention to closing credits; lots of Hollywood blockbusters have European centres involved. It's nothing new.

Re:British TV

[laurencetux]

a show that has travel to the ends of the universe (both time and space) might possibly has a few scenes on the other side of The Pond??

for Doctor Who a setting in the US is like having a scene down the street at the local Chemist

Re:British TV

[datavirtue]

Really, when Croatia is so hot right now.

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5...

Re: British TV

[UnknowingFool]

Also in the show, some scenes in some episodes might be filmed on location in the US. Like for "The Impossible Astronaut". I think it was in Utah but it certainly wasn't on a soundstage and it on location in the U.K.

Re:British TV

[Anonymous Coward]

Hollywood is a world renown for being a hub for movie and television production. They have a lot of talent concentrated in one spot. Vs the BBC who in general known for cheesy effects and production problems. Just compare Red Dwarf with Start Trek: The Next Generation in terms of production.

I can't tell if you're joking or not. Go back and watch the first 4-5 seasons of ST:TNG again sometime and observe just how cringe-worthy and appalling the acting was from everyone except for Patrick Stewart, Brent Spiner, and John de Lancie. (Having said that, the rest of them got better - much, much better - but at different rates.)

Re:British TV

[Areyoukiddingme]

... if you pay attention to closing credits; lots of Hollywood blockbusters have European centres involved. It's nothing new.

If anything, it's getting more and more prevalent as Hollywood weaves ever more elaborate tax dodges, and sucks in ever more distant tax subsidies.

If there's one thing that offends me more than anything about modern copyright, it's the fact that movies are being made with motherfucking government funding and yet somehow all the profits are privately owned in a byzantine corporate tangle that pays neither taxes nor profit-sharing to actors and production workers. THAT chaps my ass.

I want to forbid government funding of for-profit entertainment works. You take free tax money, your results are public domain, just like NASA or USDA, even if it's not all or even most of your funding. I want a GPL-type virus for government tax money in entertainment, at the very least, and probably a good deal more outside of entertainment. You want to use my money to make a movie, then it's my movie.

Re:British TV

[Cederic]

This is Doctor Who. If it had quality set design and acting it would be a betrayal of a decades old legacy.

Re:British TV

[Anonymous Coward]

red dwarf is better than ST: tng.
The only good thing in tng is that bald head captain, played by Stewart ...

Lesson: Hide the filename of pirated material

[Anonymous Coward]

Rename the source file name. Wrap it up in a Zip file. Encrypt the file. Now you can save the file into your cloud-service file storage because, yes, they will rat you out.

Re:Lesson: Hide the filename of pirated material

[giggleloop]

You mean like "IMG_ l563.TRIM.MOV"?

There's a difference between pirated footage and stolen production footage. Anyone who tries to leak the latter is just asking for the full weight of law enforcement.

Re:Lesson: Hide the filename of pirated material

[Anonymous Coward]

Zip up IMG_I563.TRIM.MOV into THeseAreNotBoobies.zip, encrypt it into THeseAreNotBoobies.zip.aes and THEN copy it up to the cloud.

Re:Lesson: Hide the filename of pirated material

[JackieBrown]

Then how do you share it? If I download a video and what actually comes through is a zip or exe, I delete it. (I don't see this problem as much anymore but maybe I am using better indexers.)

What do Golden Showers have to do with this?

[Anonymous Coward]

...

Learn from history

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why you lock up the liquor cabinet.

The Cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the BBC is asking Microsoft to do a deep-dive search across ALL OneDrive user accounts looking for a single file?

  BS

Re:The Cost?

[Shimbo]

So, the BBC is asking Microsoft to do a deep-dive search across ALL OneDrive user accounts looking for a single file?

  BS

No. They want Microsoft to identify who posted the linked file: see the TF article.

Re:The Cost?

[Anonymous Coward]

In other words, aren't they using the DMCA incorrectly? I thought that was for takedown notices, not to be used as a company equivalant to government secret letters that demand whatever they want.

Re:The Cost?

[1ucius]

The DMCA has a number of provisions.

And this one is just a matter of basic fairness. If you want the content owner to sue the real pirate (vs the ISP), then you need to them who that is.

sounds like they're just going through the motions

[v1]

I would hope that no one would be dumb enough to leak something on a public file sharing platform like dropbox/onedrive/etc without having taken many precautions to insure the account was registered and uploaded to with extreme anonymity. BBC is most likely aware that this is going to be a dead-end, and is just satisfying their legal requirement of "defense of their protected works" so as not to weaken the protections granted to them under copyright. (if you don't use the legal defenses granted to you, even on small things you don't care much about, they tend to be less effective down the road when you really do need to exercise them) This is why companied prefer to license things for $1/yr instead of just "not going after someone whose use they don't care about or mind". If anything, it's publicity, and as long as they don't actually identify and go after any individuals, it'll be mostly beneficial publicity, even if it appears to be negative.

Waste of litigation money

[Anonymous Coward]

What a waste of litigation over such trivial stuff. Shit leaks all the time anymore. If the BBC was pinning the success of this series on keeping this a secret they might as well end the series now. Is it Dr. Who, or Dr. Who?

I'm Spartacus

[jfdavis668]

Ok, I admit it, I did it.

Re:sounds like they're just going through the moti

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet another idiot conflates trademark with copyright.

Don't you morons ever get tired of demonstrating your legal ignorance?

From TFS: OneDriver (sic)

[thegreatbob]

... you wouldn't download a car, would you? By this point, I'm convinced most of us would.

Re:From TFS: OneDriver (sic)

[houghi]

Why did it take so long to convince you? In any SF story that has a 'particle multiplier' in a story, not many will have you pay for that service. It will be mostly implied that it is done for free. Be it food, goods or people transport.

The idea of paying for coppied food is weird in almost all stories.

Re:From TFS: OneDriver (sic)

[Anonymous Coward]

... you wouldn't download a car, would you? By this point, I'm convinced most of us would.

I'll start downloading cars as soon as I have a 3D printer big enough to produce them (reliably)!

Re:From TFS: OneDriver (sic)

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

Re:From TFS: OneDriver (sic)

[Cederic]

Too fucking right I'd download a car if I could reproduce one as cheaply and accurately as a digital download. Why hand over stupidly large amounts of cash for something with so low a marginal cost of reproduction?

Of course, offer me a car at a reasonable price without inconvenient restrictions and you'll get a sale. Much like the digital content I buy already..

Re:From TFS: OneDriver (sic)

[Anonymous Coward]

"In any SF story that has a 'particle multiplier' in a story"

If you have to pay for matter feedstock then that will be the majority of the cost, not the Intellectual property.

if you have to pay for energy to matter conversion that will be so vastly expensive that the IP no longer matters

Re:sounds like they're just going through the moti

[XXongo]

I would hope that no one would be dumb enough to leak something on a public file sharing platform like dropbox/onedrive/etc without having taken many precautions to insure the account was registered and uploaded to with extreme anonymity.

People screw up all the time. Most particularly, people think that their info in the "cloud" is private all the time when it isn't.

Re:sounds like they're just going through the moti

[Anonymous Coward]

How dare you insinuate I don't know the law! I will sue you for embezzlement!

No difference between this and the physical world.

[MasseKid]

A company has something stolen from it. They traces it to a storage locker, proves to a judge it is in the storage locker, and requests information on the owner so they can purse legal action. This is all this case is. The fact the storage locker is digital and the goods are digital doesn't matter.

Re:No difference between this and the physical wor

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the original is still there.... The deprivation was not of the physical product, but the exclusivity of the product. Don't equate piracy to theft. They are inherently different.... I thought this was made clear 20 years ago. Stop spreading lies and misinformation.

Re:No difference between this and the physical wor

[Anonymous Coward]

You're half right - a digital locker vs a physical one makes no difference regarding a subpoena.

A DIGITAL property though, unless unique, could be a copy, with no ability to trace the origin of said file. So in this case, the owner of the digital locker may not be the original thief, where with unique property, you could say it was a direct line back to the thief.

The same cannot be said with digital property, nor may this be the most direct path to get to the person - in this case its the only lead they have. It could be some poor kid who got the file from some hacker/worker who stole it and wanted to release it but was scared, and this kid released it. But it was transferred via various protocols that are untracable, and the kids life will be ruined because he wanted to impress some asshole hackers.

Or something. A dumb kid hiding a stolen car in a storage locker deserves a little punishment. I'm not sure the same degree of punishment should be levied against a dumb kid with a 52 second clip of an unreleased artistic work that arguable cost no (or increased visibility) to the artistic collective involved in the lawsuit.

This was an inside job, a hacker would have had more files most likely. Probably someone left a laptop open where they were reviewing shots from the day and an opportunistic worker on the location this was done had a usb key/sd card and shoved it in and copied the only file they could. Or something. ;)

Re:No difference between this and the physical wor

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, it was inserted, detected, copied, ejected, all in 30 seconds with gaffer not far behind - took longer to convince dumb IRC kid to do it. Give the worker a break. ;)

Based on the file name...

[bob4u2c]

a copy of the leaked file, titled "IMG_ l563.TRIM.MOV.

They should be looking for an Apple user.

Re:No difference between this and the physical wor

[Anonymous Coward]

That may be so but according to copyright law, the leaker is liable for copyright infringement damages for unauthorized distribution of copyrighted works.

Re:No difference between this and the physical wor

[fish_in_the_c]

They are different on some level, but not when you evaluate ( a crime has been committed, There is a normal process for tracking down the perpetrator). It really doesn't make a difference if the crime is copy right violation, theft, murder, speeding or public intoxication, the laws of evidence and proof are much the same. The only real difference is weather it is a capital crime ( aka punishable by the government and jail) or a civil crime ( aka I can sue you for money but you won't go to jail). I'd have to do some more investigation to see if search warrants are issued for civil crimes, i don't think they are, because at least in this country to my understanding they are issued to a public prosecutor and their isn't one in a civil suit.

Re:No difference between this and the physical wor

[fish_in_the_c]

I'm not sure I know the answer, Does someone , if the case is purely civil, like a divorce, can I person get a search warrant for private property? I know they can get a subpoena for bank records, this seems to fall somewhere in between.

obligatory

[OrangeTide]

EX-TER-MIN-ATE!

Dalek Supreme: They cannot escape! Our [legal team] will soon follow them! They will be exterminated! Exterminated! Exterminated!

Re: Burros are know leftists

[Anonymous Coward]

Just look at their envolvement with Castro and FARC. Always humping arround ammo or wounded gorillas. Damn burros.

Re: It must be SO HARD for you!!

[Anonymous Coward]

All those women and minorities no longer content to eat your shit. However will you survive precious!?!

Re: A cocksucker by example

[Anonymous Coward]

You sound queer. Does your mummy know your hatred for women is routed in your closeted cocksucking? I bet she does! I just bet EVERYONE knows youre a fag but you.

Re: Sure thing

[Anonymous Coward]

Being fascist cocksuckers is in Ameikuk's DNA you say? Yeah keep gobbling that old white man's knob.. Im sure itll pay off ALL OVER your face any day now!

Re:No difference between this and the physical wor

[Anonymous Coward]

Its different because Onedrive (and other cloud storage services) want us to think of them as Swiss safety deposit boxes for our data, so we dont have to keep it ourselves or worry about data security.

What a blow to that system if the corporations are subject to every little lawyer with a subpoena

Re: poor liitle pleb

[Anonymous Coward]

Youre so obsessed with seeing your political demons you see them everywhere. SAD.

Femanism, Theory vs Reality

[HannethCom]

Yes, in theory Femanism is about men and women being equal.
In practice a lot of femanists want to be more equal than men. As in equal in all aspects, except where things scew towards favoring women.
There is also a rather large group of "Femanists" that want revenge equalism. These feel that since men have had it good for so long, now women should get an advantage in everything over men.

Re:Femanism, Theory vs Reality

[Oswald McWeany]

Yes, in theory Femanism is about men and women being equal.

In practice a lot of femanists want to be more equal than men. As in equal in all aspects, except where things scew towards favoring women.

There is also a rather large group of "Femanists" that want revenge equalism. These feel that since men have had it good for so long, now women should get an advantage in everything over men.

That would be misandry rather than feminism, and I do agree that a number of self-proclaimed feminists are really misandrists; however, Doctor Who has never strayed into misandry even if it is has had feminist themes at times. Doctor Who, that I've seen, has never been more than promoting themes of equality.

Re:Femanism, Theory vs Reality

[Anonymous Coward]

Donald Trump is a Republican. Misandrists are feminists. Eat your dog food everyone.

Re: You better cut off your penis

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like youre fucked mate! Better save time and cut off your cock now you whingy little babby. WAH WAH WAH cries the babby. Fuck you pussy. Grow some balls and stop being a wingy pussy.

Re: You better cut off your penis

[yuriklastalov]

YuriKlastalov BTFO. How will he ever recover?

Crime of the century?

[Anonymous Coward]

I know murder is terrible and rape is bad but here we've got a guy who literally showed Dr. Who before the BBC decided they wanted anyone to see it - clearly this takes precedence over acid attacks and stabbings. Did he even have an uploading loicense?

It was obviously The Master

[WillAffleckUW]

I mean, how could it NOT be The Master.

He's had it out for The Doctor for a long time.

Or should I say, she's had it out for her.

Um.

Re:No difference between this and the physical wor

[ole_timer]

for civil you cannot get a search warrant - but you can get a subpoena and the other side is supposed to produce the data asked for

Re:No difference between this and the physical wor

[ole_timer]

it's not a crime if it's civil - it's an infringement of rights

Omf

[easyTree]

The 'pirates rate this worthy of downloading' stamp of approval. Sure.

Disclaimer: I haven't watched TV for over ten years.

Re:sounds like they're just going through the moti

[1ucius]

IDK. It might affect your ability to get an injunction in future cases. And, eventually, you'll end up with an adverse possession problem (it's not limited to real property).

Re:No difference between this and the physical wor

[StormReaver]

The only real difference is weather it is a capital crime ( aka punishable by the government and jail) or a civil crime ( aka I can sue you for money but you won't go to jail).

By "capital," you actually mean, "criminal." In the U.S., "capital" crimes are those that are punishable by death.

There is no such thing as a, "civil crime" in the U.S. All crimes are criminal, and most, and perhaps all, monetary-only disputes are civil.

Nurse Who, NOT Doctor Who

[Anonymous Coward]

Nurse Who, Not Doctor Who. I reject this inclusive-for-the-exclusive-purpose-of-being-inclusive. Besides, they already reached their limit of 12, so this is just fan fiction bullshit anyway.

Go ahead and mod me down... I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine. By which I mean if you downmod anyone with an opinion you dislike, the remaining conversation shall become an shrinking bubble of increasingly intolerant in their own way jackasses and all the people who actually have something to say will take all the good ideas and worthy debate elsewhere, and slashdot will continue to slide further and further into the shitter.

Could irony get in the way?

[ebvwfbw]

It would be so fitting if the US can't disclose who did it because of European privacy laws.
Fox sends them a wav file. It's Nelson from the Simpsons saying - Ha Ha.

the title of this thread is hysterical

[Anonymous Coward]

It sounds like a special fetish porn niche. Really?