The Briar Patch of Illegal File Sharing

Brian Doherty | March 17, 2005

Wired.com airs speculations that the recent appearance of the forthcoming new Dr. Who TV show revival on the file-sharing network BitTorrent may have been an intentional attempt on the BBC's part to reap the word-of-mouth benefits that can arise from the heinous crime of illegal media file sharing.

Comments

Jeff|3.17.05 @ 4:54PM|#

I've watched this, and it certainly looks like a finished version to me. It has polished audio cues and all the cuts are slick.
Also, whether BBC approved this, the widespread sharing of Dr Who has been a boon. It generates the kind of buzz that use to happen when directors showed their movies or shows at SF conventions.
Now if they'd make the new Capt Scarlet show avaialable legally I'd be a happy man.

CodeMonkeySteve|3.17.05 @ 4:58PM|#

News Flash!!
» The sky is blue!
» Politicians lie!
» The Net can be used to distribute content!

What I find more interesting is the trend of bands (mine included) to release not only the songs (or whole albums) for free on the net, but also the individual instrument tracks. Don't like the drum part? Record your own ...

|3.17.05 @ 5:05PM|#

So what's the big deal? Who got hurt by the release? And BBC is a bigger source of misinformation than CBS

Jeff|3.17.05 @ 6:01PM|#

A similar story about the unreleased Fiona Apple disc currently burning up cyberspace.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/gate/archive/2005/03/16/notes031605.DTL

Jesse Walker|3.17.05 @ 6:34PM|#

BBC is a bigger source of misinformation than CBS

That's true. Studies have shown that 80% of the information in any given episode of Doctor Who is inaccurate, as opposed to just 65% of Everybody Loves Raymond.

Jeff|3.17.05 @ 8:49PM|#

Jesse, that's the funniest one-liner I've read all week.
It should be noted that the bootleg Who buzz is also getting US networks to notice. At last check not even BBC America was planning to air it, sending geeks (including me) across this great land into a tizzy.

|3.17.05 @ 9:05PM|#

How can a UK subject be said to have "stolen content" from Auntie Beeb when he has to pay a @#$%^&! tax to them just for the privilege of owning a TV receiver?

Kevin

|3.17.05 @ 10:53PM|#

I agree with those who say it's a no-lose proposition for the BBC as they make their money from the TV taxes anyway.

|3.18.05 @ 6:36AM|#

Dr. Who?

Oh, wait, I meant Fiona Who?

I'd say you have to be buzzed to get a buzz from Dr. Who but unfortunately I know for some people that isn't true.

|3.18.05 @ 11:14AM|#

Yes, this is certainly a stop-the-presses revelation.

This transcends the internerd, though. Those no-talent fucking hypocritical hacks, Metallicrap, became popular due in large part to bootleg tape trading & copying. Then, of course, in the ultimate hypocrisy-defining moment of all time, the asshats turn around and get their panties in a bunch over file sharing---now, of course, that they've already made their millions.

All of this is old news, and I'm sure it's been rehashed many a time, but...this tactic didn't just pop up with the advent of the internerd. The real question is, if it's true that the BBC purposefully released these clips, will they, in the future, turn around and pull a Metallicrap and start suing file sharers. Time will tell...