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."

caches

[objekt]

http://web.archive.org/web/20070711035656/http://tv-links.co.uk/ [archive.org]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Ftv-links.co.uk%2F&btnG=Google+Search [google.com]

Re:Power Play

[rhombic]

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:I didn't know this existed

[JediLow]

http://tvrss.net [tvrss.net]

Re:caches

[cstdenis]

Cache won't be useful for long with stuff constantly being taken down.

Re:I didn't know this existed

[ravenspear]

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.

Re:HuH?!

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is it illegal to tell others where a certain thing (legal or illegal) is occurring?

Since the Napster case set a precedent that you are guilty of contributory infringement if your linking/indexing/aggregation is used primarily for infringing copyright and/or if your advertising encourages/promotes the fact that the service can be used for infringement.

I'm not saying I agree with that ruling, but the precedent has been set.

(Yes, I'm fully aware that the Napster case was in the U.S. and this current arrest is in the U.K. ... my point is that modern copyright laws, which are largely harmonized across countries that are signatories to the Berne convention, can indeed be used to attack people who willfully encourage or facilitate infringement.)

Re:The obvious question....

[msblack]

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 will speak volumes for the crowd that moderates postings.

Re:The obvious question....

[Bogtha]

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 use of premises for infringing performance", but that's a bit of a stretch.

Re:The obvious question....

[spiritraveller]

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 expression or ather affirmative steps to be for the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright.

Obviously it is. The link points directly to copyrighted content being distributed by an infringing third party.

Re:HuH?!

[bubblah]

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 really should go after the source, not the linking systems. But then some linking systems might be easier to take down. Another will take its place, that is the humor part of this, the whole hydra issue.

Re:Power Play

[History's Coming To]

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 which sites I run, do a WHOIS do find out the hosts and then force them to hand over the details of the billing address.
Easy enough, and (on paper) quite a big crime. Will they? No, probably not. People have to complain before the public prosecutors can act in this country. You could dissolve a man in acid in front of a thousand people, but if nobody officially complains and the police don't see it, they can't prosecute.

Re:Another good one

[Anonymous Coward]

Hush! I have it on good authority that alluc.org is a really lame site that never has any good links to anything and is a real joke. In fact, it's really a blog about kitties and doggies and pictures of fluffy teddy bears.

Re:Power Play

[gowen]

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.

Re: Official Secrets Act

[The Cornishman]

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 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. [ros.gov.uk]