Talk:Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Screenshot copyright[edit]

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)

This makes no sense to me. How can the perpetrators claim copyright over the image, when they were INFRINGING on copyright in the first place (as the Max Headroom character was certainly not licensed for this pirate broadcast?) --HillbillyProfane (talk) 13:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

We're not saying that the perpetrators are claiming copyright. We're saying it's non-free media, i.e. not in the public domain or available under the GFDL or similar license. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I see where you are coming from, although I think the image is quite necessary to the article. Thanks again. --HillbillyProfane (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Transcript?[edit]

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)

References[edit]

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)

Similar incidents[edit]

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)

Discussion about external links[edit]

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)

Name of article[edit]

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)

Importance to WP:TV[edit]

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)

Check out Broadcast signal intrusion. There are far more than 3 documented cases.98.220.58.62 (talk) 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it is important to have pages like this. This is the type of incidents that are easy to disappear or become greatly exaggerated in the future if not accurately documented. I personally remember the WTTW broadcast, I may even have it on video tape... It was late enough at night, I thought maybe I dreamed the whole thing. As an historical point it is not that significant, but if exaggerated it may seem like one in the future.Bill C. Riemers (talk) 23:40, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning of adult content in external links[edit]

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)

Request For Unprotection of Max Headroom pirating incident[edit]

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)

Video Link Updated[edit]

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)

MuchMusic (Canada) Intrusion[edit]

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)

Title[edit]

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). Smiley.svgCharlotteWebb 17:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Voice[edit]

can someone tell me if the voice was made by the broadcast of did he make it that way, or was it because of the transmission?--The_stuart (talk) 07:40, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

My guess is that the audio was recorded at the same time as the video. SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:18, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


IMO it does sound like it was intentionally distorted. --TiagoTiago (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The audio was intentionally ring-modulated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.122.38 (talk) 20:21, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Proof of hijack?[edit]

Somebody deleted my edit where I discussed this as being a hoax, because they assumed I was just chatting about the subject. What they didn't realise was I was trying to show that we have absolutely ZERO PROOF that a broadcast signal intrustion actually occurred here! Nobody has been charged and nobody can verify anything! The whole incident is assumption! That's what I was getting at with my previous edit: that I could go to work tomorrow and do the same thing. Please cite PROOF that this was indeed an actual "broadcast signal intrustion" and NOT just a pre-recorded tape switched to air at both channels by prankster comrades. Thank you. SJ2571 (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

In the Philadelphia Inquirer article, Anders Yocum of WTTW called the incident "an illegal override of the station's video and audio signals," and said that his station's technicians "attempted to take corrective measures, but couldn't". That's not proof of a broadcast signal intrusion, but I don't think anyone at the time seriously suggested it was an inside job. Zagalejo^^^ 18:13, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, but yes, that doesn't provide proof. Any station spokesperson will say anything to cover up a disgruntled employee. I was hoping to find proof by way of actual microwave records at the time, etc. Until then, we have only the official spin of the station to believe. SJ2571 (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
So apparently you have no proof of your claims. I think we have no reason to devote any more energy to this matter unless someone comes up with a reliable source to back it up. SchuminWeb (Talk) 15:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Another point is that we don't do original research here, we merely report what reliable, third-party sources say. In this case, the Philadelphia Inquirer would count (even if they are quoting a station spokesman, we have a third-party source to use: the Philadelphia Inquirer). As SchuminWeb states, if you can find reliable sources that state that it was a hoax, please feel free to bring them to our attention. Dreaded Walrus t c 16:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Grammatical error in title[edit]

Max Headroom broadcast signal intrusion incidents <-- It should be plural —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.69.201 (talk) 18:30, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Technically, it was one incident across two stations, so I'm standing by the singular title. SchuminWeb (Talk) 22:50, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
No, technically it was two separate incidents across two stations. One incident implies that they happened at exactly the same time, which they did not.

Further transcript[edit]

This article seems to contain most of the video's transcript up until the spanking man says "Bend over, bitch" and the man in the Max Headroom mask starts moaning and saying "Do it." I think this is a pretty integral part of the transcript, as it's certainly the most risque thing said in the video. I just tried editing this part into the article though and either a bot or another editor flagged me for vandalism. Is this not relevant to the article? —04:04, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Without a reliable source, it is original research - a no-no. SchuminWeb (Talk) 17:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
It is factual; you can check the original video. Usually plot summaries are not copied from secondary sources, because if nothing else it's easy to be a copyright infringement that way.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:54, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The parts you are trying to translate are nearly impossible to make out, and are subject to much interpretation. That said, because of that, unless a reliable source says what the wording is, it is original research. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:41, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that SchuminWeb is trying to own this article.--99.177.250.140 (talk) 20:08, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. WP:V and WP:ORWP:OWN. SchuminWeb (Talk) 23:09, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Link to IMDb[edit]

Quite anything that have a page on IMDb has a link to it on page in Wikipedia. Max Headroom incident has such a link. I posted it, but it was deleted because, in opinion of the man who deleted there was nothing new. Actually I failed link, because it leaded not to main page on IMDb about film, but to Miscelanneous Links page. Actually, film's page now have more information, links to photos and many other additional details that can be presented by IMDb. I don't want to anger anyone, so I just asking - can I post this link in External Links? --Nikolay Yeriomin (talk) 20:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I agree with SchuminWeb. It really doesn't add anything worthwhile. It's just a lot of guesswork and filler. (eg, "Director: Not Max Headroom") Zagalejo^^^ 22:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Choice of term[edit]

I wouldn't call this a "signal intrusion" incident inasmuch as I would refer to it as a simple case of jamming. -- Denelson83 08:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Reddit[edit]

Is there any proof supporting the Reddit post this article mentions? Anyone could make a post claiming to know about the identities of the culprits, but without any reason to believe them we shouldn't be citing those posts on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.148.35.38 (talk) 08:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Clearly fails WP:RS. Removed it for now, but hope there are some better sources with the same information. --— Rhododendrites talk |  16:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

An All New Max Headroom incident[edit]

On 12/30/2013 Max Headroom struck again. This time on DirecTV. It was during WWE Monday Night RAW when the signal on USA acted like bad weather was causing the signal to barf on the screen and a new Max Headroom Hijacker appears. But unlike the old one this hijacker did it from his bedroom. This video proves it. Max Headroom Strikes Again. --Wikiwizard726 (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Unknown 3rd video???[edit]

Is this another "Max Headroom" video??? maybe a lost tape of his 3rd appearance on TV???

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N26TzSLOjng — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.105.108.222 (talk) 04:07, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The video is just a combination of voice-acting, a backwards version of the 2nd hijacking video, and the noise from the 1st hijacking video. The 3rd video is fake. Mr. McLeod (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2016 (UTC)