Talk:Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion incident

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion incident article.
Article policies
TV
Television Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Television, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to television programs and related subjects on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as high-Importance on the importance scale.
Assessment comments

Contents

[edit] Screenshot copyright

I have removed the request to delete the screenshot of the pirate broadcast as, IMO, the screenshot meets fair use guidelines and adds signifigantly to the article. If you wish to revert this please justify it here first. 195.72.170.227 04:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)


The request was ridiculous in the first place! The illegal broadcaster is certainly not protected under copyright law. Did someone think the culprit will now come forward to complain about a photo in Wikipedia??? More likely they revel in it!!!
Perhaps the request was because of confusion over the actual Max Headroom show rather than a picture of someone in a mask.
I found no such request in the archives. Apparently is was removed when the article was renamed. So this section should be archived or deleted as well.
75.39.152.138 04:26, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
The legality of the broadcast does not impact the copyright. It meets fair use, so I say use it, but it is a valid copyright. -Mask? 21:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transcript?

Should there be a transcript of what was said? (or what might have been said, as many people disagree on what he's saying on many statements) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.252.10.228 (talk) 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
I went ahead and added one, based on the two videos linked to in the article, and some of the comments to those. Not sure how to attribute those. Also, is there any way to make the text 'click to reveal', since it contains the 'B-word'? --24.252.10.228 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No need for a "click to reveal" measure. Wikipedia is not censored, and in this case removing the profanity would provide a less accurate transcript. Rob T Firefly 13:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reformatting the transcript section; I made a few corrections to the overal grammer and provided a few wiki-links. Hopefully, all here will be in agreement with the new layout and its readability. If not, please feel free to add your own input. And thanks to person who created it to begin with. It is a much-needed addition to the entry. Labyrinth13 19:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

My question is, should we have a transcript on the issue that it's likely a copyvio? I'd be inclined to remove it on those grounds, since, as absurd and illegal as the pirate broadcast was, it's still technically copyrighted. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I feel pretty safe in saying that the chances are virtually slim to none that anyone will ever challenge the transcript on copyright grounds. Labyrinth13 00:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, the chances are slim to none that anyone will actually challenge it, but the transcript here appears to be original research, and therefore I'm going to take it down. Let's leave it to the viewers of the videos (especially since one is captioned) to figure out what's being said. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Having listened closely to the actual recording, I believe that what the transcript stated that you removed was pretty accurate for the most part, but on further thought, agree with you that it probably qualifies as original research. As such, I have no problem with the removal of the transcript, but from my experience here on Wikipedia and on this entry in particular, I suspect that the removal may be challenged by others. We shall see, right? Labyrinth13 21:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References

I added a section for References and inline citations and also provided the first two inline cites.

Other editors may want to consider reformatting and/or providing inline citations for many of the statements made in the main body of the entry. Labyrinth13 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Similar incidents

I added a new section to the entry for incidents of a similar nature and provided inline citations for them. Labyrinth13 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion about external links

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

Please don't restore this discussion. It has been removed as a courtesy to a departing user, via private request (OTRS 2007061510011776). If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to email me. Thanks, Daniel 06:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name of article

Should this really be called a "pirating incident"? Pirate broadcasting exists, and that might be what the title refers to, but "pirating" as a verb more often refers to copyright infringement, and I'm not sure that's the best description of what this incident was about, even though trademarks at least were no doubt infringed incidentally. Did a reliable source call it a "pirating incident"? 67.158.76.16 12:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the video popped up on YouTube everyone has called it the Max Headroom Pirating Incident. The newscast video also called the Max impostor "Chicago's Video Pirate".[1]--jonrev 20:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
How about a reliable source? 67.158.76.16 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Newscasts are reliable sources. SchuminWeb (Talk) 10:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Broadcast television may qualify, but that's a YouTube link. Is there a citation for the actual broadcast television newscast? 67.158.76.16 11:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
That's a clip of the actual television newscast archived on Youtube. As such, it's a reliable source. Rob T Firefly 12:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance to WP:TV

I've downgraded the importance of this article to the project as a whole. An article on pirating incidents in television might conceivably be a top priority - an article about one such incident is not.--Opark 77 15:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with this is there are only three such known incidents of pirate hijacking ot television signals, two of which were in Chicago on the same night and were likely perpetrated by the same indiviuals. 76.214.221.167 (talk) 02:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Warning of adult content in external links

I realize that it is somewhat odd to protect for this, but since this back-and-forth has gone on over several days, I just want to get everyone on the record about everything and reach some consensus. I anticipate this being a fairly open-and-shut discussion, thus the 24-hour protection job. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request For Unprotection of Max Headroom pirating incident

Can someone please explain why this page is protected?? and if the page needs to be protected can it be semi-protected so that only registered users can edit, There are some serious spelling errors that I would like to correct, obviously there is a Wikipedian out there who doesn't know how to freaking spell Advertising as they publishing it as advertizing. Thank You in Advance. Simon Bar Sinister 05:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I imagine it's to do with the recent repeated vandalism by anonymous IPs, but I too believe semi-protection is the answer. Rob T Firefly 17:34, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I already explained last night in the next section up, titled "Warning of adult content in external links". It was only a 24-hour protect, and will expire automatically just before 11 PM EST, just to get everyone on the record in what is likely going to be an open-shut case. Do we need semi-protection? Not really. Still, I recommend responding in the next section up. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:27, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video Link Updated

Hi everyone - I updated the video link with a higher-quality version that doesn't have the YouTube compression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.193.221.142 (talk) 16:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MuchMusic (Canada) Intrusion

There has been intrusions on the MuchMusic broadcast signal in Toronto, Ontario. There have been multiple intrusions that occurred now. 99.229.147.172 (talk) 18:12, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Title

A few days after moving the article from "Max Headroom pirating incident" to "Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion incident" I realized that the latter title might have been hasty and needlessly pedantic, and I only did so based on the information in the lead section which described this event as an example of "broadcast signal intrusion", and because "pirating" in the former context would probably make the average person think the article was about copying Max Headroom DVDs or something. Any of the following would be fine as far as I'm concerned:

  • "...broadcast intrusion incident"
  • "...signal intrusion incident"
  • "...broadcast signal hijacking incident"
  • "...broadcast hijacking incident"
  • "...signal hijacking incident"
  • "...pirate broadcast incident"

But not "...pirating incident". Mentioning "Chicago" somewhere in the title might be helpful due to the common location of the affected stations, but that's not a major issue. — CharlotteWebb 11:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "Max Headroom pirating incident" is an inaccurate description, but I am perfectly satisfied with the present "Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion incident" as it stands right now. I like it because it is neutral, and sticks to the technical term for such incidents. Anything with "hijacking" in it is POV, and the others fall short of the technical term. Saying "Chicago" in the title is unnecessary, since the only Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion incidents occurred in Chicago, and thus no disambiguation is needed. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I deliberately revised certain passages which previously implied that the masked "Max" man was the one responsible for disrupting the broadcast, which is obviously not a known fact. Especially if his antics were pre-recorded, which seems to be the case if the same skit was broadcast twice without noticeable differences other than audio, it is ambitious to assume that he knew how the tape would be used. I did check the video, mostly looking for some uttered phrase that might suggest that he knew he was or would be on television, but alas I couldn't understand a word of it (and it would have been original research anyway). — CharlotteWebb 17:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)