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 didn't know this existed but now that I do I would really like to know what other websites have the same type of conent.
A little help?
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
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.)
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.
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.
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.
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".
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
http://web.archive.org/web/20070711035656/http://tv-links.co.uk/
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftv-links.co.uk%2F&btnG=Google+Search
-- Boycott Shell
Coincidentally, I just tried to visit that site. It's of course down.
And then I went here to slashdot and saw this story.
But now I must be moving on again, in my travels across the intertubes.
Azural - instrumentals
Alluc.org
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
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
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.
--
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.
Where do you get the idea that you need to "sign the Official Secrets Act" in order to be covered by its provisions? Nobody has to "sign the Official Secrets Act" but as a Crown servant (or contractor) one is required to sign a piece of paper which acknowledges that one understands the Act's provisions. All persons in UK jurisdiction are covered by the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989. The 1989 Act was "An Act to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 by provisions protecting more limited classes of official information" The 1989 Act does not affect the operation of section 1 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, which protects information useful to an enemy. The maximum penalty for offences under section 1 of the 1911 Act is fourteen years' imprisonment.