TV links shut down and owner arrested

I suppose they could reopen the site and allow users to post links and not the administrator that way it's not all his fault just like Youtube have hosted parts of TV Shows through the users fault and not Youtube and they've not removed it. I suppose that could work.
 
It's a bit like getting arrested for making a list of all the electrical goods stores in the area, handing it to someone and saying "here you go, there is a lot of good stuff to steal from these places" :rolleyes:
 
I live in cheltenham and used to use tv links all the time, i never knew the dude who ran it was one of our own though!!
 
If he's just found guilty of linking to the sites though I can see him getting a fine at most and moving his site to the Netherlands like so many others.
He facilitated access to copyrighted material, which is illegal. He would not have been arrested otherwise.

His punishment will be decided by the courts.
 
It's a bit like getting arrested for making a list of all the electrical goods stores in the area, handing it to someone and saying "here you go, there is a lot of good stuff to steal from these places" :rolleyes:
No it's not. Simply telling people that electrical stores have goods available isn't illegal. Telling people how they could steal from those stores is.

He actually provided the information that made the downloading of copyrighted information one click away. He facilitated it. That's illegal.
 
eveyone saying the site had links to videos etc blah blah blah wich is why the site was taken down and owner arrested.

Google, Yahoo, MSN, MS Live they all if you do a search wil link you to videos or sites that have links etc
 
No it's not. Simply telling people that electrical stores have goods available isn't illegal. Telling people how they could steal from those stores is.

He actually provided the information that made the downloading of copyrighted information one click away. He facilitated it. That's illegal.

Such is the nature of the internet though is it not? He shouldn't be prosecuted for that. If I told my friend a website to friend warez, or free pirated movies off of I wouldn't expect to be jailed.
 
eveyone saying the site had links to videos etc blah blah blah wich is why the site was taken down and owner arrested.

Google, Yahoo, MSN, MS Live they all if you do a search wil link you to videos or sites that have links etc

there's a difference. one is setup to achieve an illegal aim, the other isn't.
 
Why don't TV and Film companies just put adverts in episodes and shove them on torrent sites themselves... sure, some people will skip past them, but a few 100 thousand won't. The other option is to put a logo in the corner of an episode / multiple logos throughout the episode.


ie. I download 24 new episode, and it has a McDonalds logo in the bottom corner, quite small and out the way. Millions upon Millions of people download TV episodes, so someone might as well do that.

I just download them because i cba to walk downstairs to watch stuff on TV... I guess a lot of other people do that too... oh, and also I don't want to arrange my schedule around watching the new episode of X and Y (dont have sky plus or Tivo or whatever)
 
eveyone saying the site had links to videos etc blah blah blah wich is why the site was taken down and owner arrested.

Google, Yahoo, MSN, MS Live they all if you do a search wil link you to videos or sites that have links etc

But none of those sites exist solely to provide links to copyrighted material. But, I agree they are still providing links. The only way to prevent that happening is to have a fully regulated Internet. I can't see that happening.
 
As I'm studying this area of law at the moment I feel (semi) able to talk on this subject. As such I'd point out that the guys not gone through a trial yet - he's just been arrested.

Frankly I'd say that the police are taking a gamble arresting him. The law really isn't clear on this and, IMHO is in his favour. I'll dig out my notes and post a longer explanation in a second.

EDIT:
CDPA 1988 s24 said:
(2) Copyright in a work is infringed by a person who without the licence of the copyright owner transmits the work by means of a telecommunications system (otherwise than by broadcasting or inclusion in a cable programme service), knowing or having reason to believe that infringing copies of the work will be made by means of the reception of the transmission in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.

To me, the simple argument would be that the legislation is meant to protect only those direct transmissions of work rather than this indirect transmission.

As the files themselves are never transferred, at best, I think he could be seen as a sort of network operator giving access to this information. To quote 'Computer law' (Chris Reed) 'As yet, there has been no English court decision concerning the potential liability of network operators for copyright infringement via the internet'
 
Last edited:
""The 'users' are potentially evading licence fees, subscription fees to digital services or the cost of purchase or admittance to cinemas to view the films,""

Oh noes, evading the license fee! Now the bbc won't be able to produce it's amazingly high quality programs like bargain hunt and car booty, such a loss for everyone, NOT. Oh wait, almost everyone using the site was already paying the license fee, those who don't pay are just watching tv as normal while telling the bbc they don't have a tv.:rolleyes:

I'm sure it's going to be such a blow to the thousands of torrent sites hosted in asia and eastern europe....
 
I suppose they could reopen the site and allow users to post links and not the administrator that way it's not all his fault just like Youtube have hosted parts of TV Shows through the users fault and not Youtube and they've not removed it. I suppose that could work.

Doesn't work like that.

The site is still owned by the admin, where the content is stored. Whether the admin posts it or not, he is still responsible for the content. Hence why Spie doesn't want medical/illegal content posted here.

Did TV Links have it's own tracker by the way?
 
Why don't TV and Film companies just put adverts in episodes and shove them on torrent sites themselves... sure, some people will skip past them, but a few 100 thousand won't. The other option is to put a logo in the corner of an episode / multiple logos throughout the episode.


ie. I download 24 new episode, and it has a McDonalds logo in the bottom corner, quite small and out the way. Millions upon Millions of people download TV episodes, so someone might as well do that.

I just download them because i cba to walk downstairs to watch stuff on TV... I guess a lot of other people do that too... oh, and also I don't want to arrange my schedule around watching the new episode of X and Y (dont have sky plus or Tivo or whatever)

I don't think that will work.
Firstly, like you said, you can skip the commercials, secondly even if you have an advertising bug in the corner of the screen, it's going to be difficult to really sell a product with just some logo.

I believe ITV even considered recently for the Forumla 1 coverage having half the screen split up during the break so that you could still see the coverage while the rest was for the commercials. Advertising means so much that they didn't want their commericials like this because they believed nobody would be paying attention to them.

Finally there is the way advertising and the programme itself is sold, as it is sold to tv networks in different countries to display, who then fund their network with advertising revenue (except PSBs ie BBC). I just can't see it working for any of them.

I'm not going to say that I've never downloaded something... but take Lost for example. People kept going on about how much the audience figures dropped on it last season... fair enough, a lot of people might have given up on it. However, practically everyone I know at work who watches it had downloaded it... these kind of things are slowly having an impact on viewing figures and if they think nobody is watching them, they are going to stop making them because they can't get the returns from advertising.
 
Last edited:
Heh, what a load of crap then.

The site just hosted .torrent files.

Erm.. it did?

Last time I looked the site was links, and links alone.

Also, tbh, they need to go after Google (GVids/YouTube), Veoh, DivX (Stage 6) and several other large video sites for allowing the content to stay available for so long.
 
The sad thing is, that he was providing a damn site better service than *any* of the television networks do. Because

a) He was an independant, and therefore was politically or other motivated to promoted / restrict one program over another based on network. His service didn't require some dodgy DRM infested video player to track what you do on your computer like the dodgy BBC iPlayer that doesn't work with other networks/ operating systems.
b) He was open and honest about it, even if the content was restricted, he never profited directly (though he had adverts, but that is the main issue I would have with him). He was simply forwarding you onto stuff that was already there, and tbh you could find yourself if you just used google. Why aren't you suing google for bringing up dodgy links?
c) He neither i) uploaded or provided any of the content or ii) charged for access to that content.

The really sad matter is, with the organization of his website as efficient as it was, it was *so* easy to get that content matter removed, you could simply *follow his links* in order to prosecute the people who were actually storing. So all those anti-piracy people had to do is follow use his service, and he would lead them *directly* to the offending material.

What should have happened, had the anti-piracy not been so lazy, was to simply shut down the offending material, and tv-links would have died through lack of material. But they can't do it, because someone else simply uploads. And herein lies the real problem.

So basically, he is a scapegoat. ALL that material is still there. It won't be five minutes before someone sets up another in sweden or god knows where. Its still easy to combat the links with a proper reporting system.

What really annoys me though, is that none of this really move the tv industry forward, drives change towards a legal way to download programs. Dodgy things like iTunes getting half their programs pulled because of some political thing with FOX - I really don't care. Give me an independant and legal way to view the content - and I will.

But TV broadcasting itself is an outdated concept and the sooner they realise that, the better.

Challenge forces progress, not legislation. The most advancement of the sailing ship was with the introduction of the battle ships at the turn of the 20 century.
 
Back
Top Bottom