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."
I just got my first ever "Nothing for you to see here. Please move along." Anyways... it would be interesting to see what happens with this. Taking it to the real life examples... many shops that sell pipes and other drug-use paraphernalia have many run-ins with the laws, and yet they are still in operation to this day, and the only time actual legal repercussions are brought to the managers of these stores is usually through another issue, that it technically unrelated to their shop. This should be the same issue. I would not be surprised if it is treated differently however.
insight through the mind
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.
Any bets on how long until ThePirateBay snaps up the domain name and re-opens the site?
The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
that's too bad. i ran across the site a while back and discovered there were episodes and, indeed, entire seasons of british television shows i was fond of but had never had the opportunity to see here in the states. after getting a chance to watch them, i tracked down the dvd sets (amazon.co.uk ftw) and bought them. this site was doing the industry a favor but, typically it seems, was viewed instead as some kind of threat. balls.
What I don't understand is, why shut it down? I mean, here is a site, leveraging user content to provide the MPAA and such with direct links to content that is in violation. This seems like the perfect way to quickly and easily send massive amounts of DMCA takedown notices and such. The users of pirated content provide the latest, best links to pirated content for you to have taken down.
They might have just killed something they could have used as a great tool.
There is a web site that provides links to CRIMINALS, and the police pull down the web site? Why not leave the site up and use it to help track down the people actually creating and hosting the pirated content? Heck, I'm surprised the police were not operating the site themselves as a sting operation.
Whether piracy is Right or Wrong, it is presently against The Law, so this site could have been a useful tool for investigations.
$nice = $webHosting + $domainNames + $sslCerts
Napster didn't host any content either.
Apparently, helping people to find illegal content is illegal.
I suppose the bottom line is this: there are several rich and powerful people in the world who want the free flow of information to stop . So this sort of thing will keep happening.
Alluc.org
well i reckon if i ran a business where people knocked on my door and asked me where to buy some cocaine, and i told them which address and what time to go to, and they gave me $1 for my time, then I'd be in a cell right away, despite not physically having any cocaine or selling it.
No doubt this site made money from ads, and to pretend the business model of the site was not designed around leeching money indirectly from copyrighted material is just naive.
People are always so keen to argue the finer points and wording of the law if it lets them carry on taking other peoples stuff for free, but when your house gets burgled, and the guy gets off with a technicality, are you equally anal about defining guilt?
It seems obvious to me that if you run a site that provides easy access to copyrighted content, you are breaking the law, especially if you do not remove that content when the copyright holder alerts you to it.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
Until recently we would have had to rely on the Register as the only UK-based organisation that would get it on this sort of thing; however we now have the Open Rights Group, who I hope will be saying something about this at least, which might merit an inch or two below the fold on p22 of one or two of the broadsheets in the next week or so.
Everything I needed to know about life, I learnt from Blake's Seven
I would have to respectfully dissent. You either break the law or you don't. Take Radar detector manufactureres. They manufacture and sell a product designed to assist breaking the law. We (and the companies of these detectors) can safely assume that most of the customers are or will be committing a crime, and will be assisted by the radar detector they are selling for a profit. Yet, these companies aren't being raided by the FBI. Why? Because it is not a crime to make a radar detector. It is a crime to speed on the high way. Not being able to distinguish between the 2 sets up a very dangerous slippery slope that I spoke about in my OP.
Only on Slashdot could that be a bad thing.
Scientific method? Pffft. Whatever.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
Hang on to your tinfoil hat there a minute. Don't big this up into being some fascist state bullshit. this was not 'the organizers of people' it was not a radical anti-government organization encouraging political debate, or suggesting political change. it was a way for geeks to download copyrighted tv and movies. don't try and pretend it was anything more intellectual.
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
"People are always so keen to argue the finer points and wording of the law if it lets them carry on taking other peoples stuff for free, but when your house gets burgled, and the guy gets off with a technicality, are you equally anal about defining guilt?"
..." part definitely isn't law - the DMCA says something more like "especially if you don't comply with the detailed take-down procedure when the owner follows it.", and the DMCA is definitely a lot longer than a paragraph - guess those extra 13 pages are all just technicalities. Or do you know for a fact that the British equivalent is a real short law with no 'technicalities' included?
No, when my house was burgled, the perp sold one of my stereo components at a flea market, and I'm proud to say I did just what you advocate - I nagged the cops until they prosecuted the college student who bought it and it cost him so much he had to drop out. I agree with you totally, figuring he was probably just an innocent bystander would have been anal, and the only non-anal definition is "they're all guilty, castrate them all with a dull spoon!" We never caught the burglar, but we sent somebody elss to jail for something at least vaguely related, so justice was done, totally non-anally. Thank goodness hangin' judge Bob agreed with me.
You just sincerely defined high standards for protecting innocent people as anal and used a tremendously fictitious example to support it (When was the last burglary case you actually heard of where the law let the criminal go free on a technicality? Burglary? It's a well established area of law, where several states have recently adopted laws letting you flat out kill the criminal in defense of your property - what are you claiming is a mere technicality?).
I reckon the site might have made money on ads, and its business model definitely seems to have been to attract viewers with links to outside content. I don't yet know if they preferred copyrighted content or not, or if they just ignored copyright issues, or not, just as I don't know if they made a real effort to take down infringing links or made only a token effort. Things like that should come out at a trial.
I also don't know if they broke a law yet or not. There's a real difference between providing easy access to (other people's) copyrighted content, and making a criminal's task easier merely as an inadvertent consequence. If I teach your burglar to drive, I've increased the number of houses he can get to - is that somehow accessory to burglary? Helping people find a local cocaine dealer for the purpose of buying his drugs is a conspiracy, but having taught that dealer's high school chemistry class isn't, and helping someone find him for some other reason isn't likely either, and that's not a technicality, it's common sense. It seems obvious to me that the law in question doesn't say "Providing easy access to copyrighted content is illegal." It probably runs several pages, at least. The "especially if you don't
Who is John Cabal?
It's sad that the effort put in by the police at personal property crime is so low that most cases are dismissed within a few months while they can pull in a huge number of people for an effort like this.
And then the police are complaining about that ordinary people takes the law into their own hands.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Please note this statement will be subject to legal challenge when the case comes to court. In the meantime, feel free to rant and rave about the big hand of media conglomerates smashing content viewers who wish to avoid paying fees for their activities.
NOTE: This post does not argue any point of view and merely points out very obvious facts. When it gets modded down as redundant or flamebait or troll, that will speak volumes for the crowd that moderates postings.
In fact, the form and tact of your wording does give your statement a position and you are thus arguing a point. While I will not mod you for it, I will call you on it. The wordchoice "rant and rave" is commonly interpreted with a negative connotation. Combine that with the statement "feel free", where you are giving permission thereby placing yourself in a position of benevolent authority, when no one needs your permission if they care to "rant and rave"... And it then becomes even more inarguable that you have a stance and aren't merely pointing out obvious facts. Its also clear your a griefer about the moderation system, as your so self concious about it you make innaccurate predictions in an apparent attempt to game the system.
Overclockers
TV Links is not responsible for any content linked to or referred to from these pages.
TV Links does not host any content on our Servers
All video links point to content hosted on third party webites. Users who upload to these websites agree not to upload illegal content when creating their user accounts. TV Links does not accept responsibility for content hosted on third party websites.
If you have any legal queries please email legal@tv-links.co.uk It seems they at least talked to a lawyer beforehand. They never hosted the actual content in question. Taking their servers has eliminated exactly zero pirated works from the internet. This will be a tough one to prosecute.