Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media The Internet Businesses Government Your Rights Online Politics

TV Links Raided, Operator Arrested 246

Posted by Zonk
from the there-goes-the-neighborhood dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TV Links Raided, Operator Arrested

Comments Filter:
  • by bit trollent (824666) on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:25PM (#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?
    • by op12 (830015) on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:26PM (#21046665) Homepage
      Nice try, MPAA!
    • Power Play (Score:5, Insightful)

      by whackco (599646) on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:30PM (#21046743) 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 @05:16PM (#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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          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
    • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:32PM (#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.
      • by Mouse42 (765369)
        With the rate at which content was getting taken down, I thought that this was actually true.
      • by ravenspear (756059) on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:58PM (#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.
      • by PhreakOfTime (588141) on Friday October 19, 2007 @04:22PM (#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:wtf? (Score:5, Interesting)

            by Brian Gordon (987471) on Friday October 19, 2007 @05:02PM (#21048219)
            The MPAA is going after the organizers of people, not the people who are actually doing things illegal. Cue grandparent post.
            • by megaditto (982598)
              And this is wrong how, exactly?

              But of course you go after the masterminds, the leaders, and the competent enablers.
              For example, we target drug kingpins over your average drug users, our snipers are trained to take out the top brass rather than the lowly conscripts, the FBI and ICE will (or used to) focus on violent gangs rather than the jaywalkers, &c.
              • Re:wtf? (Score:4, Interesting)

                by Brian Gordon (987471) on Friday October 19, 2007 @10:43PM (#21052065)
                The difference is of course that drug kingpins, top brass, and violent gangs are actually doing something illegal.
              • by Xiaran (836924)
                What about legitimate use? What about the the legal documentaries that were indexed on tv-links. I *know* there were also links to copyright protected materials but how is this tv-links.co.uk problem. There are perfectly legal ways to have them taken down by contacting the hosting sites themselves. When ever I hear about laws that are enforced to stop people facilitating or making illegal activity easier I become nervous. If I put a link to illegal content on my web site and wrote that clicking on it would
      • 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 @08:01PM (#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.
        • by delt0r (999393)
          Think napster. The UK could rule the same way. That by providing links that have no leagal use is part of the crime. Kinda like adding and abetting or whatever.
    • Another good one (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ravenspear (756059) on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:52PM (#21047049)
      Alluc.org [alluc.org]
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by darkfish32 (909153)
        In case you're interested, it's meant to sound like "all you see" on the internet. Has always been better that tvlinks: has way more content, updated more often, and constantly improving the interface and organization to get what you want faster/easier.

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

    by creativeHavoc (1052138) on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:27PM (#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.
    • by PhxBlue (562201)

      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 ...

      Probably because no one has a copyright on marijuana. :)

    • 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
  • by King_TJ (85913) on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:28PM (#21046705) 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 @03:34PM (#21046789) 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 @03:45PM (#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.

    • by Yer Mum (570034) on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:46PM (#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:2, Insightful)

        by d34thm0nk3y (653414)
        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.

        Or, maybe, by not arguing a point of view and only pointing out obvious facts you have added very little to the discussion...
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by kalel666 (587116)

          Or, maybe, by not arguing a point of view and only pointing out obvious facts you have added very little to the discussion...


          Only on Slashdot could that be a bad thing.

          Scientific method? Pffft. Whatever.
      • by mikael (484)
        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.


        That is so funny. I used to pay for premium channels on cable TV UNTIL Rupert Murdoch and Richard Branson had their squabble over Sky One and Sky News.

        After that, a good many VirginMedia customers admitted that they were now visiting bootleg sights in order
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by I.M.O.G. (811163)

        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 wor

    • 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)

      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
      • Well, civil and criminal infringement are pretty different, so I don't think that Grokster would be a useful precedent for a criminal infringement case. This is not to say that there might not be some other statute or precedent which is relevant, but you're going to find it in the realm of criminal law, not copyright law.
    • 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

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dirtyhippie (259852)
      Honestly, I'm surprised they lasted as long as they did.

      And while I agree that they didn't do anything wrong, I think so for a very different reason - I don't accept the notion that a stream of ones and zeroes can be "pirated" or "sold", or for that matter "owned".

      The whole argument about not hosting illegal content, but merely providing links to that content seems fallacious to me. Imagine if they were talking about child pornography or something terrorist related instead of pirated movies - you can bet yo
    • The problem is that it bypasses due process ...a punitive action is taken solely by law enforcement with little judicial oversight, and without the alleged criminal ever seeing a day in court. Really, that's abusive: only the courts are allowed to mete out punishment, yet the police have arrogated that power to themselves.

      Anyone involved in such activities should be ashamed. And then fired.
  • hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

    by User 956 (568564) on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:29PM (#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 @03:30PM (#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.
    • by xtracto (837672)
      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...
      • by kebes (861706)

        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: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Gregb05 (754217)
        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 agreem
    • Re:HuH?! (Score:4, Interesting)

      by cliffski (65094) on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:53PM (#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.
        • by LingNoi (1066278)
          Isn't Google hosting this content? Can't I find the content by searching Google? Why aren't Google in jail?

          oh right! Because if it's an individual you're responsible for your actions but if you're part of an organisation you were just following orders.
          • Because google responds to takedown notices, and the intent of their service is a broad and legal 'search results' instead of a narrow and copyright infringing 'heres copies of every major tv show with the comercials removed'

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

        by imstanny (722685) on Friday October 19, 2007 @04:12PM (#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.
        • by zakezuke (229119)

          Take Radar detector manufactureres. They manufacture and sell a product designed to assist breaking the law.

          Technically it's not criminal, but a minor infraction. Traffic tickets fall under municipal justice. The product is designed to detect traffic radar, it's not designed to help you speed. I've never owned one my self but I could see how it would be handy provided it gave you fair warning you were being watched and to double check your speed, or better yet looking for your self at your speed if you get tagged. Perfectly acceptable application IMHO, and legal in well, most states.

      • by gurps_npc (621217)
        Actually, NO, you would NOT be in jail.

        Instead you would have a thriving business of informing to the police.

        No, telling people where copyrighted content is not illegal, in part because it may not be illegal for them to access it.

        There are such things as fair use laws. Some countries have strict ones, some have loose ones. I can put a 5 second clip of Mickey Mouse in my documentary about Disney and guess what, Disney can not sue me. (Well, they can always sue, but they won't win.)

        • by cliffski (65094)
          So you think its OK for (in my example) someone to make a living acting as the local phone directory for drug dealers?
          what has fair use got to do with linking to torrents of full tv series?
      • 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

        Why do you reckon this? Just because you assume something is illegal does not make it so. If I knew the guy down the street was a coke dealer and someone asked me who the coke dealers in my neighborhood are, exactly why should it be illegal for me to tell them, and take $1 for my tim
      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Monstard (855195)
        Great, so now watching TV is equivalent to snorting cocaine?
      • by langelgjm (860756)

        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,

        This is especially true of the /. crowd, from what I've seen. A lot of the people here don't seem to realize that if you actually take the time to read, say, SCOTUS opinions, they attempt to provide some solid reasoning, and to strike a just and equitable balance in general. Judges are not metaphysicians - they don't give a damn about the "true" nature of information and w

      • 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
        • by cliffski (65094)
          oh will you listen to yourself. this isnt teaching someone to drive without any idea what they will drive for, the site was called TVLINKs and is apparently the most popular website to get copyrighted TV show torrents, they didn't exactly hide the stuff. you might as well put a big sign outside your house saying "ASK ME ABOUT STOLEN GOODS!".

          Its frankly pathetic for anyone to try and pretend that this site is ok just because they aren't hosting the content. if the same site linked to torrents of child porn o
      • by Bent Mind (853241)

        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.

        I had to think about this a minute. I agree with you for the most part. However, you wouldn't be arrested for selling information. You would be arrested for having it. I'd think that most jurisdictions would say that you were aiding and abetting [wikipedia.org]. As to how this might apply to the topic, if the web-site operator were actively encouraging people to post links to pirated material then a judge might call that operator an accomplice to the crime (even if the crime is civil). If the web-site operator could show

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by rastoboy29 (807168) *
        Meanwhile, back in reality, the law is an ass.

        And what content are you suggesting they should have removed?  The URL's?  Are those copyrighted now?
      • When you use an analogy that fits what's happening, I'll listen to you, but piracy on the internet is not something the physically deprives someone of their assets, it's depriving them of a potential asset that might have happened. If someone steals your car, are you going to be more or less angry than if someone stole the cap off a bottle of soda where you might have won a car? Even that example is more clear cut than internet piracy, because the cap is a physical item!

        In other words, come up with an a
        • by cliffski (65094)
          and if everyone takes that attitude, they all pirate the content, and the content providers implode. maybe there are a few anarchist idiots here that reckon that would be a good thing, but as those same people are the ones constantly downloading the very TV shows that would no longer be made (heroes and lost and 24 are not made by amateurs) then I suspect they are wrong.

          If what you advocate (taking content and not paying) does not scale up to everyone in the market doing what you do, then basically you are
          • I didn't advocate anything but you coming up with a better analogy than burglary. The equations not as simple as 1 download = 1 lost sale. Ask Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart what effect online piracy has on TV (hint: it made them hits). Saturday Night Live is having a revival of popularity because of online clips. Firefly came out on DVD because of online piracy. I can't think of a single example of something failing because of online piracy, just a lot of theories and really questionable figures. I can poi
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by bubblah (1095629)
      There is some precident in this if the copyright holder objects - http://www.news.com/2100-1030_3-6145744.html [news.com] from news.com, plus the issue of deep linking has always been contentious. However, agreed that TV links linked only to media, but they also wrapped the media in their own picture window. rather than taking you to the media directly, they did open it up in a popup window that was affiliated with TV Links. Not saying this is right or wrong, but it opens up the whole embedding of content issue. They
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:30PM (#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.
    • Agreed. I never would've gotten into Battlestar Galactica if it weren't for tv-links. Now I intend to watch the new season on the sci-fi channel, commercials and all.
  • By their logic... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Korveck (1145695) on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:36PM (#21046817)
    Google needs to be shut down for "facilitation of copyright infringement on the internet", or even "facilitation of terrorism on the internet".
    • by pembo13 (770295)
      They're working on that.
    • The internet needs to be shutdown for the same reasons by the logic of the thought police.

      According to the law, we are all criminals just waiting to be caught breaking a law, or we are just waiting to have a law applied to us that allows them to catch us.
    • "Google needs to be shut down for 'facilitation of copyright infringement on the internet', or even 'facilitation of terrorism on the internet'."

      IANAL, etc.

      You're missing a key point. The DeCSS case decision in the U.S. held that knowingly linking to infringing material was a copyright violation in and of itself. The sheer vastness of Google's links is probably what protects it from prosecution. If Google is informed by a copyright holder of an infringing link, then Google may have to no longer link to a
    • It'll be funny when we're the generation saying "back in my day". All freedoms have a price and the market is open.
  • by Dekortage (697532) on Friday October 19, 2007 @03:43PM (#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.

    • by rucs_hack (784150)
      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 @03:50PM (#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.

    • by mgblst (80109)
      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.
  • Braaaains (Score:2, Insightful)

    by damburger (981828)

    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.

  • How sad.

    Obviously this is something the general public like and want.

    Obviously big business > the public. As usual.

    Big business fails to provide, public finds elsewhere. Big business thorws a hissy fit. Someone gets arrested. People lose what they want, big business goes one step further towards hell.

    Status quo, nothing to see here. Moving along...
    • by radish (98371)
      Obviously this is something the general public like and want.
      The general public would probably quite like large amounts of free money, doesn't mean it makes sense for them to get it.

      Big business fails to provide
      Actually big business did provide - the actual content that is. Big business paid for all those TV shows to be made in the first place (obviously things are a little different when it comes to BBC content, but that's a whole other discussion).

      public finds elsewhere
      And if big business don't get compen
  • One thing has just struck me on re-reading the article - the police raided the site and arrested the guy. That is the level of force they use when going after Islamic extremists. Apparantly, the corporate elite that controls, well, the entire fucking planet, thinks that people who provide links to copyrighted content (without hosting it themselves) need to be dealt with in the same way as those who commute with C4.

    This is the world we live in. Profit is valued at least as much, if not more, than human li

  • magna carta - 1381 peasant revolt - civil war, you name the rest.

    you can pull the same stunt too. dont let them suppress you.
  • This is the legal legacy of Napster throwing their lawsuit as part of their deal to sell out to BMG. BMG got Napster, its userbase, brand and (so what) technology, but most importantly the copyright industry got a legal precedent that just a directory, but no content, of copyrighted content somehow violates copyright. Of course the original bad precedent was the early attack on MP3.com [wikipedia.org], which scared stupid old record execs when the Rio MP3 player hit the shelves. So just those two badly fought and lost prec
  • Four easy steps:

    1. Turn off the TV
    2. Pick up a book (preferably in public domain, consider having a peek at Project Gutenberg [gutenberg.org] or your local public library
    3......
    4. Profit!

    No, really -- it's a nice day outside.
  • Say a bunch of people were to mirror tv-links' current HTML content on various random servers, and then tv-links itself turns into just a mirror index; how long until it'd be taken down for pointing at things which point at things which point at user-generated links to things which might be illegal?

Logic is the chastity belt of the mind!

Working...