TV Links Raided, Operator Arrested 246
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."
The obvious question.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.)
HuH?! (Score:4, Insightful)
Power Play (Score:5, Insightful)
Power Play (Score:4, Insightful)
By their logic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The obvious question.... (Score:5, Insightful)
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)Braaaains (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Dont you get it yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:I didn't know this existed (Score:4, Insightful)
To compensate, try cutting the fuel costs by siphoning off the neighbours' gasoline.
Re:The obvious question.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Or, maybe, by not arguing a point of view and only pointing out obvious facts you have added very little to the discussion...
Re:Pointing to illegal content = conspiracy! (?!?) (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:HuH?! (Score:3, Insightful)
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 that remain unsolved. What this shows is that the priorities of said law enforcement agency and hence the government that runs the agency are not where they ought to be.
Re:HuH?! (Score:2, Insightful)
And what content are you suggesting they should have removed? The URL's? Are those copyrighted now?
Re:The obvious question.... (Score:2, Insightful)
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 your bippy that site would have been shut down a whole lot faster, and very few people would be bemoaning its fate.
Arguing that linking to content shouldn't be illegal is a cop out that misses the point. The real debate should be about whether it's immoral to copy a stream of ones and zeroes - whether it should be legal to "own" information.