Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

TV Links Raided, Operator Arrested

Posted by Zonk on Fri Oct 19, 2007 02:23 PM
from the there-goes-the-neighborhood dept.
Media The Internet Businesses Government Politics
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."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Technology: Google Video Blasted Over Piracy Claims 103 comments
Stony Stevenson writes "A US-based copyright watchdog has sunk its teeth into Google by sending a report alleging copyright violations on Google Video to members of Congress. The National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC) researched the extent of copyrighted material being hosted on Google Video earlier this summer and released a Top 50 list of apparently copyrighted movies. But, in the latest spot-check of Google Video conducted from 10 to 18 September, the NLPC claims to have discovered 300 additional instances of apparently copyrighted films, including over 60 movies released this year. This is despite Google's claim that it respects the rights of copyright holders, and provides tools to help identify and remove copyrighted intellectual property from the site."
Submission: TV Links raided, operator arrested by NetDanzr (619387)
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

TV Links Raided, Operator Arrested 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • I didn't know this existed (Score:5, Funny)

    by bit trollent (824666) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:25PM (#21046631) Homepage
    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?

    • Re:I didn't know this existed (Score:5, Funny)

      by op12 (830015) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:26PM (#21046665) Homepage
      Nice try, MPAA!

    • Power Play (Score:5, Insightful)

      by whackco (599646) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:30PM (#21046743) Homepage Journal
      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.

      • Re:Power Play (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Z00L00K (682162) on Friday October 19 2007, @04:16PM (#21048447) Homepage
        The public trust in the legal system will be reduced even more.

        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.

        • I'd normally argue that the guy broke the law, and got arrested....so what?

          Nut that's a good comment that deserves addressing...watch this...

          "The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (from where I am posting) lives at number 10 Downing Street, London."

          I just broke the Official Secrets Act. Seriously. That's a pretty heavy crime, and it's easy enough to trace me with evidence like that. Get a lawyer on to it, force Slashdot to hand over my registration details, google the email address, find out

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by gowen (141411)

            I just broke the Official Secrets Act. Seriously. That's a pretty heavy crime, and it's easy enough to trace me with evidence like that.
            Err, no. Firstly, that's not a secret, and secondly unless you've signed the official secrets act, you're not covered by nearly all of its terms.

            And since you're clearly a moron, I'm guessing you're not a Crown/Military official who's been asked to sign the OSA.
            • 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 [opsi.gov.uk] was "An Act to replace section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 by provisions protecting more limited c

    • Re:I didn't know this existed (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2007, @02:32PM (#21046757)
      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.
      • With the rate at which content was getting taken down, I thought that this was actually true.

      • Re:I didn't know this existed (Score:5, Informative)

        by ravenspear (756059) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:58PM (#21047147)
        Most of the actual content was hosted on foreign servers in asia/europe, so a DMCA takedown notice would have done diddly squat to remove it.

      • Dont you get it yet? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by PhreakOfTime (588141) on Friday October 19 2007, @03:22PM (#21047561) Homepage

        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

        • wtf? (Score:3, Interesting)

          by cliffski (65094)
          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.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by cstdenis (1118589)
        Cache won't be useful for long with stuff constantly being taken down.

      • Legal Information (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Nazlfrag (1035012) on Friday October 19 2007, @07:01PM (#21050769) Journal
        From their 'Legal' page:

        Legal

        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.

    • Another good one (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ravenspear (756059) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:52PM (#21047049)
      Alluc.org [alluc.org]

  • I'm so excited... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by creativeHavoc (1052138) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:27PM (#21046685) Homepage
    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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by sumdumass (711423)
      The problem is, the "drug paraphernalia" has many legitimate uses other then drug use too. It can be seen as selling drug paraphernalia or selling a tobacco pipe, or postal scales or whatever instead.

      So the only ways to tell if the store owner is selling drug paraphernalia or something that is used legally, is to ask them. well, guess what the answer is going to be.

      Now, the difference between this and TVlinks is what other legal use is a link to a copyright protected work that is being displayed without the

  • The obvious question.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by King_TJ (85913) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:28PM (#21046705) Homepage Journal
    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.)

    • Power Play (Score:4, Insightful)

      by whackco (599646) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:34PM (#21046789) Homepage Journal
      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?

      • Re:Power Play (Score:4, Informative)

        by rhombic (140326) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:45PM (#21046969)

        Anyone know what sort of SLAPP provisions the UK has?

        Doesn't matter, this wouldn't fall under it. Likewise if this had happened in the US. SLAPP laws apply to civil actions, this was a police action (according to the FA, police plus "officers from Gloucestershire County Council trading standards"). You might be able to make a case against them for some kind of wrongful prosecution, but SLAPP limitations won't apply.

    • Re:The obvious question.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Yer Mum (570034) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:46PM (#21046977)

      In Spain, a judge has found that a similar site which holds links to films or music is not illegal, saying that they did not host any material and .

      http://www.20minutos.es/noticia/293205/0/enlaces/descargas/sharemule/ [20minutos.es]

      (in Spanish, Babelfish may help if you don't speak it)

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by OriginalArlen (726444)
      Yes, you're are spot on. Evilcopyrightmafiascumspawn are the same all over the world.

      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 [openrightsgroup.org], 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.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by msblack (191749)
      A genius named King_TJ wrote:

      How is anything this site did remotely "illegal"?

      The answers to all your questions can be found in the original article.

      A 26-year-old man from Cheltenham was arrested on Thursday in connection with offences relating to the facilitation of copyright infringement on the internet, Fact said.

      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

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Bogtha (906264)

      How is anything this site did remotely "illegal"?

      It's hard to say; the article doesn't give enough detail. The relevant UK law is, I believe, the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act, 1988 [opsi.gov.uk].

      I suppose if the site hosted torrents, that would fall under "an article specifically designed or adapted for making copies of that work, knowing or having reason to believe that it is to be used to make infringing copies.".

      Alternatively, if the site merely hosted links, it might be classified as "permitting us

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by spiritraveller (641174)
      It doesn't apply to the UK, but for an American context, the Grokster decision says that "one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties."

      It's not much of a reach to call a web page, website, or html link a "device".

      The question then is whether the distribution of this particular link, site, or page is shown by clear

  • hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by User 956 (568564) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:29PM (#21046717) Homepage
    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?
    • Not gonna happen. That'd essentially be advertising for the competition. As TPB is funded by advertisements on its torrent search pages, it doesn't want you watching video online, it wants you using its torrents.

  • HuH?! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by imstanny (722685) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:30PM (#21046729)
    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.
    • Crap, I think the movie companies should be *glad* that Tv-links existed! it can help them to easly see where the materials are being distributed (stage6, tudou, etc, etc...) its like if some guy in a magazine shop has a front door list with addresses where people sell mariguana or coca, if there is someone with the balls to do that... they should be given a prize, not arrested...

      • I think the movie companies should be *glad* that Tv-links existed! it can help them to easly see where the materials are being distributed

        True enough... but when it comes to copyright infringement, it is so widespread that the companies cannot ever hope to send Cease & Desist letters for each infringement. Nor are they really lacking for ways to find cases of infringement.

        Trying to stop each case of infringement is impossible, since a large fraction of the population is willfully infringing. So the

    • Apparently you haven't visited the United States of Amerika lately.... It is illegal to give information to someone else knowing that they are going to use the information in committing a crime.

      It falls under the "way" big, and "way" vague heading of "conspiracy".

      By providing you links to infringing material, they are conspiring with both those that provide the material illegally, AND those that conspire to obtain the material illegally.

      "Conspiracy" is the most "bogus", anti-free-speech charge cooked up by

    • Re:HuH?! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cliffski (65094) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:53PM (#21047081) Homepage
      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.
      • > 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 way, you'd be headhunted by the RIAA and MPAA and paid millions for you're irreplacable skills.

      • Re:HuH?! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by imstanny (722685) on Friday October 19 2007, @03:12PM (#21047385)
        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.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by steelfood (895457)
        especially if you do not remove that content when the copyright holder alerts you to it.

        I thnk you're confusing things. The site doesn't own the content; it just links to it. There's no law that states site operators have to remove links when requested. The laws only apply to the sites hosting the content itself.

        I'm not particularly against this action, however foolish and pointless it might seem. But I am against using law enforcement resources for such a trivial thing when there are rape and murder cases

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Artifakt (700173)
        "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?"

        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

  • it was nice while it lasted (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19 2007, @02:30PM (#21046741)
    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.

  • By their logic... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Korveck (1145695) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:36PM (#21046817)
    Google needs to be shut down for "facilitation of copyright infringement on the internet", or even "facilitation of terrorism on the internet".

  • Let me get this straight... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dekortage (697532) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:43PM (#21046945) Homepage

    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.

    • If I stuck up a website that told people where to score some crack, I'd be arrested too, even if I had never met a dealer personally. This guy linked to the content, and like it or not, in England the copyright enforcers are almost as anal as those in America and Japan, so he's screwed.

      I shouldn't think for a moment he's surprised though. I'm pretty certain he made money from the site too.

  • Coincidence (Score:3, Funny)

    by Neon Aardvark (967388) on Friday October 19 2007, @02:50PM (#21047029) Homepage

    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.

    • Make sure you come back sometime, and tell us some more about your travels.

      Fascinating stuff really, almost as exciting and relevant to anything as this post.

  • 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.

    • yeah,
      Its another case where those making and enforcing the law don't have a clue about the technology in common use by modern society.
      To be honest, I always thought the UK authorities were generally more in-touch on this than the US authorities, but it seems not.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.