Slashdot Mirror
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."
"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."
Bill Clinton gave us both Hillary and the DMCA.
Ouch.
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.
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.
Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
I'm still waiting for season 10 to appear. Forever it seems.
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.
So it's owned by the conservative government and is simultaneously liberal propaganda? That's.... interesting.
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.
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.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
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.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
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.
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.
... you wouldn't download a car, would you? By this point, I'm convinced most of us would.
There is no XUL, only WebExtensions...
How dare you insinuate I don't know the law! I will sue you for embezzlement!
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.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
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.
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.
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.
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.
âoeTolerance applies only to persons, but never to truth. Intolerance applies only to truth, but never to persons.
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.
I tend to rant.
"Political Correctness (aka, Political Censorship), is fascism pretending to be Manners."
-- George Carlin
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"?)