Tv-Links Raided, Operator Arrested
 

"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."

..i never thought you could get in trouble for linking.. i thought these sites were safe from the law.

also worth a read:
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technolo..._linking_.html

one down 25496486 more to go....

i have one of these sites... i guess its time to sell heh

so they nail him, but don't go after google and the other sites who actually hosted the videos that he linked to, hmmmm funny

the information age, the thought police and you...

I believe Google and YouTube have an immunity agreement with the studios etc as long as they have a filtering system in place and are activing trying to remove such content.

so then why did this guy get nailed for using videos posted on their services?

no idea, I just know that Google and YouTube won't get nailed.

there's a billion dollar lawsuit by Viacom against YouTube and Google.

This is a new agreement I believe that just was in the news last week, when they unveiled their new filtering system.

i always thought they weren't responsible if they didnt host.. sucks for that guy..

lol, my sister was just telling me about this site...

looks like she told you a little too late

I loved that site...and if someone is going to me for that: here's a "shut up hypocrite." in advance.

bash ...bashbashbashbashbash

Why is it everyone is refering to what the guy was doing as "linking" to videos when he was clearly "embedding" the videos.

I have a site that links to street fight videos, should I start shoping aaround for the best lube?

link to?

Or you embedding and or iframing them?

damn that Ashcroft!

It's still not breaking any laws, so how could they arrest him?

I went to the link you put up and had a poke around and found this
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology...ernet.newmedia

They have links to lots of free tv etc. so is it ok to link but not ok to embed links, i cant see the police coming round to arrest the staff at the guardian for doing almost the same thing.
They need to stop going after the little guys all the time if the well known companies are flaunting the law then why should your average surfer care about copyright ?
I know this is simplifying things a bit but you get my point ?
Ah well just glad i am not in content :2 cents:

it's total horse shit

That he didn't host or upload.

Courts probably won't care whether a video is hosted locally or externally - if it shows on the page then it's "part" of the site.

If external inline content was recognised as such then all USA webmasters could link hotten their explicit images to a server located outside of the USA...

Why he was arested??

I don't understand..

Why arested??

link to, only 2-3 embedded

because he is a defenless individual ...

good news

Embedded links are effectively publishing. If an end user could not tell that the content wasn't on the site, it would be part of the site.

Plus you have to consider the commercialization step: If the guy embeds videos and surrounds the content with tons of ads and such, he is then intentionally stealing from others to profit from it. Without the videos (even if he doesn't host them) he would have no traffic and therefore would have no business. He needs stolen or misused content to be able to be profitable.

Good move.

Wow, that kinda blows. I have one site where I embed music videos from youtube. Guess that idea has gone down the shitter.

Sad thing is, when I check the upload date on youtube, the videos have been hosted there for years with no attempt by anyone to remove them.

damn that sucks.

After reading a bunch of news articles about it, it sounds like the pirated movies were what drew the attention. Pretty stupid posting handycam movies of stuff that is still in the theaters.

By that same useless logic, bloggers who embed videos should be arrested.
By that same useless logic, news sites that republish news with adverts should be arrested.

Not only that, the videos opened in a new window and CLEARLY stated that they were hosted somewhere else: Video From : Google.com [click for the original link]

Movies weren't the attraction: it was the TV episodes from shit that was no longer aired, generally. Had a huge back catalogue.

should have hosted it from Sweden! (or where ever the pirates hideout is) :1orglaugh

there is nothing in the youtube tos that says you cannot display ads on the pages you embed videos.

basically what your saying is that in order to use the videos youtube offers people to embed on their site , the consumer must personally verify the video is not copyright protected. seeing as how there is no way for a consumer to do this i would find this very strange

Oh well... if anyone wants to buy a site like this hit me up :winkwink:

He was easy to get. Google has an army of attorneys.

Not easy to get.

He was one man and all but look at pirate bay

they always hit the little guys..

You know what I think is funny? A bunch of fucking adult webmasters sitting around cheering as the internet is censored and carved up into little pieces for mega corps and the government to control. Don't worry, they haven't forgotten about porn and they will get back to their favorite thing of cleansing the net of smut. This is just a temporary detour.

You guys have all failed to learn just like the bible thumpers. The laws that take away thier bibles tack away our ass fucking flicks. And the laws that take away the movie sites will eventually take away the porn sites. You just wait and see.

This industry really does get what it deserves.

Here is the full article from the Gaurdian to save you clicking the link


According to a report in The Guardian: "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."



The arrest and the closure of the site - www.tv-links.co.uk - came during an operation by officers from Gloucestershire County Council trading standards in conjunction with investigators from Fact and Gloucestershire Police.

Fact claims that tv-links.co.uk was providing links to illegal film content that had been camcorder recorded from cinemas and then uploaded to the internet. The site also provided links to TV shows that were being illegally distributed.



It's a pity the Gloucestershire Police started with such small fry. There are a couple of multibillionaires called Larry Page and Sergey Brin -- the founders of Google -- who provide vast numbers of links to content that is being illegally distributed. Indeed, as everyone knows, they actually host plenty of illegal content on their own video site, YouTube, which has a UK operation.

Is the message that it's less criminal to host illegal content on YouTube than it is to to link to it from a site such as TV Links? Or is it just that FACT (Federation Against Copyright Theft) and the police won't tackle anybody with enough high-powered lawyers to fight back? Is The New Freedom blog correct in saying: "They just have so much money that they have become above the law."

Of course, there is a difference between building a site around links to content that could be presumed to lack copyright clearance and linking unintentionally from a site set up for a different purpose. However, I'm not a lawyer so I don't know how significant this is. (Is shoplifting OK if you have a proper job but criminal if you're unemployed and starving?)

It will be interesting to see who FACT picks on next. There are plenty of newspaper journalists who nowadays, as part of their proper jobs, link to YouTube videos and other internet content. It would be amazing if every single bit of material -- some of it "repurposed" -- had full and correct copyright clearance.

In future, do I risk being thrown in the slammer for linking directly to a YouTube video? What if I just say "go to Google and search for [YouTube xxx yyy]" or whatever? Oh dear, I forgot, Google's illegal so that will have to be closed down.

Perhaps I am already breaking the law by linking to Google, YouTube, TV Links, Pirate Bay and other sites that link to illegal content because this must also count as contributing to "the facilitation of copyright infringement on the internet" -- and, by the way, I expect you are breaking the law if you link to or even read this story.

Indeed, if linking is illegal, we might as well shut down the Internet, because there is no practical way anybody can guarantee the legality of what's on the end of any link. Even if you could guarantee it at the time of linking, there's no guarantee it would still be legal less than a second later, or for the rest of time.

Update: Amusing in context, see this earlier Guardian article TV quick!, about sites that provide links to TV programmes.

There ya go! Nothing like committing copyright infringement while bitching about others committing copyright infringement. :thumbsup

Man, this place is too much sometimes. :1orglaugh

Here is a comment from one of the moderators of the site

Ihave used Tv-Links on many occassions and i was also a moderator which i am proud to say. I have been on the site for over a year i believe. Although they did embed the files are still hosted on yourtube and google the content does NOT go on tv-links. There was also talk about another forum member who was held for questioning for 5 hours in Ireland he/she has verified this and i won't divulge his/her name but that person was released and was not prosecuted and neither has the owned for the simple reason as the site was NOT illegal it was merely a quick tool to do what you can do on google anyway you can quite easily go to google and type "family guy s01 ep3" or something along those lines and get the main video. If linking to google is illegal then what is google? There are numerous other sites doing the exact same thing as Tv-Links nothing is going to change by F.A.C.T's actions if anything more sites will be published to keep Tv-Links style websites alive.

When programs like Kazaa were shut down oh so long ago another 3 took its place. There is now an opening in the market for such sites and that opening will be packed with other sites getting into Tv-Links' HUGE place with Tv-Links over 37,000 registered users and probably 500,000 unique users a month there is definetly room for other sites.


You what is strange we havent heard anything about this on the TV I only became aware of this from reading it on GFY, Normally things like this are on the TV before they even get into the papers.

So much for that new filtering system g00gle uses, eh?

If I am breaking the law by copying and posting this on here then so is the original person who posted the link here and every body else who has posted links to youtube and other such sites, that means that GFY is full of copyright material. If you read the article it says "TV links had illegal film content that had been camcorder recorded from cinemas and then uploaded to the internet". I think this is the real problem

You pasted the whole text. Undeniable copyright infringement. And everyone else that did it is infringing as well. And so is google and everyone else, yada, yada, yada. Linking is not copyright infringement, and I dont care what "they" say about this case or any other. Not that I care anyway. I could give a fuck about copyright laws myself.

I just like how the same people that bitch about it do it themselves, and I find it terribly hilarious that this industry is cheering on the war against tubes/torrents/whatevers while at the same time bitching up a storm about 2257 and CAL-OSHA "protecting" the talent. Its but another example of how everyone loves to get the government involved (because doing so ALWAYS makes it better, right?) except when it involves their own shit.