Slashdot Mirror
TV Links Raided, Operator Arrested
NetDanzr writes "TV Links, a Web site that provided links to hundreds of movies, documentaries, TV shows and cartoons hosted on streaming media sites such as Google Video and YouTube, has been raided by UK authorities. The site's operator was also arrested, The Guardian reports. Even though the site has not hosted any pirated content, it was a thorn in the side of movie and TV studios, thanks to having links to newest movies and TV shows. As the largest site of its kind, it showcased the power of user-driven Internet, with the site's visitors helping to keep links to content constantly updated."
How is anything this site did remotely "illegal"?
This sounds to me like it simply amounts to harassment by legal authorities, after having pressure put on them to "do something" by the movie and/or TV studios.
I know here in the United States, "search and seizure" is a popular law-enforcement tool for the purpose of slowing/stopping activities they can't really find sufficient evidence to prosecute. (All you need is a judge's signature saying it's ok to proceed with a search and seizure, and they can waltz in with the warrant in hand, seizing the "offending" property. Then just lock it away in an evidence locker for a few years, sitting on it and depriving the owner of it. Eventually, sure, they'll probably just return it, claiming "insufficient evidence" to make a case against them - but they accomplished what they were really after.)
Since when is it illegal to tell others where a certain thing (legal or illegal) is occurring? Is it then illegal to for me to link to his site? ...This is a dangerous slippery slope. While he maybe contributing to illegal activity, but so is modern technology in the production and distribution of illegal drugs - that doesn't make planes and needles illegal.
Yeah, although it existed, I dont' know what the law states in the EU as to linking to protected content. This might just be a power play by the studios to make an example of them. I have a feeling this is going to be similar to the raid that was done on the pirate bay servers, and in a few months they will drop the charges, after almost or completely bankrupting this poor sap.
That is exactly what this is. A power play by big studios to make an example out of this guy. After nearly or completely bankrupting him, they will drop all the charges, and he will be off on his way. Anyone know what sort of SLAPP provisions the UK has?
Google needs to be shut down for "facilitation of copyright infringement on the internet", or even "facilitation of terrorism on the internet".
Worse than the shut down of this excellent site, is the Grauniads zombie-like reproduction of the copyright-nazis statements. There is no suggestion that there might be two sides to this debate. There is nothing beyond 'this man is a criminal and the authorities have now arrested him. Lets hear from the authorities'
Despite this infuriating self censorship, I know this is a very popular site amongst non-technical types, so its closure might help raise awareness of this kind of injustice.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
This is not about 'protecting' copyright.
This is about CONTROL.
What better way to avoid spending all the courts time issuing takedown notices than to SCARE those using this site, and OTHER sites to stop doing what they are doing?
Be very wary of those who go after the organizers of people, for their motives might not be something you can even imagine
To compensate, try cutting the fuel costs by siphoning off the neighbours' gasoline.
Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
When defining a concept, for instance, "Truthiness" you only need to put quotation marks around the new term once. Thereafter, it is understood that you are referring to the previously defined term.
Furthermore, HTML has mechanisms for emphasizing certain parts of expressions, such as bold, underline, or italic. There's also several commonly accepted non-HTML standards for doing so, such as *stars*, _lines_ or CAPITAL LETTERS.
As for the content, Conspiracy applies to two or more people entering an agreement to break the law at the same time, knowingly aiding someone committing a crime, may cause the breaking of more laws; For instance, evading police after a bank robbery.
Freedom of speech protections end at most destructive, non-political messages, such as shouting "fire" in a theater when no fire is present, or falsely defaming a person or their business. Most courts would rightly consider freedom of expression ended when it concerns illegal acts; Should someone be caught attempting to sell drugs to a police officer, they would most likely not be successful claiming a freedom of speech defense, even though he or she may not have possessed controlled substances at the time.
Finally, the law in question isn't American, so any precedent or legislation in the American legal system doesn't matter as far as this article is concerned.
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer.
--