Talk:TV Links: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:41, 16 November 2007

Law Unassessed

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Bearian 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC) [reply]

This article was nominated for deletion on October 24, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Moderator also arrested & This is 2d time its been shut down

Someone removed my information, cba finding it all again.

- They where shut down before by the MPAA, so they moved servers abroad
- The forum staff where also arrested !!! for organised crime
- The website is actualy STILL ONLINE, but the domain no longer works.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.0.99.21 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How can it be still online if the domain doesn't work? I'm confused... --Marshmello 23:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marshmello (talk • contribs)

The server may still be up, but the domain name is no longer registered. Nonetheless, the website is inaccessible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SubstanceDx99 (talk • contribs)

After further contemplation, I believe we may be able to access the site if we knew its original IP address. The domain registration system may be bypassed if the site's IP is entered. Any feedback appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SubstanceDx99 (talk • contribs)

Not sure if I got this right

If 'facilitating copyright infringement' is now a crime, does this not make many many things illegal? ie the internet, selling blank cd's, and who knows how much else. I'm scared —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.113.160 (talk) 19:49, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention (potentially) Wikipedia Pete 23:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not if you are not facilitating copyright infringement, by say, setting up a site and linking to pirate content. What exactly are you scared of? Everyone can stop pretending he didn't know what he was doing. It is like someone cutting keys to order for people homes, robbers wondering in with black masks and swag bags, picking up the key and going to where the goods are "hosted" and then turning round to the police an saying "What? What did I do?! I was just selling keys"...indeed...but you KNEW what those keys were for didn't you...I would say an indexed list of pirate content was most certainly "facilitating copyright infringement" and damn right criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.53.133 (talk) 23:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube and google was supplying the keys, he was the guy who told people where to locate the guy who sold the keys, which is not illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.182.73 (talk) 20:23, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who engage in software and media piracy will be the first to complain when draconian laws are passed controlling the internet, even though it will be down to them and their activities. Telling someone you know someone who can supply you with pirated goods is guilt by association. If I advised someone of an individual I knew who sold guns, and the police found out about it, I am sure they would be very interested to meet me...as they were very interested to meet this criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.53.133 (talk) 11:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was absolutely no copyright infringement with tv-links.co.uk!!! They did not host or store or distribute ANY files on their site, nor did they collect any money or membership fee. All they did is provide information and links to where you can find the files!! This is a back end attempt to get at the Chinese based sites that the film and television industry are incapable of shutting down!!! They are the ones hosting a majority of these files, and if you want you can search the web for these files using the (term site:website) parameter on any search engine including google and find these pirated files as easily as he did!! FACT needs to pull its head out of the sand and realize that this site was no different than YAHOO or GOOGLE... it just had a very specified purpose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.85.131.212 (talk) 07:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By extension of the logic displayed above, websites such as YouTube would be the guns sellers in the analogy.77.99.12.23 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actual charge

Does anyone know what the site creator and maintainer was actually charged with? // 24.250.125.206 03:02, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They will find one, anyone who takes money away from big business will have the government come down on them, they own everything. Most likely it be along the lines of Copyright Violations.EmoHobo 04:30, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsure how this Talk Page editing works, so please forgive me if I have messed anything up. According to a report on this blog, among other sites which I can't seem to locate at the moment (will edit this if/when I find them,) the site creator was released upon further investigation. --Ray 86.31.0.174 15:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No charges have been filed as of Oct. 26, according to the Guardian. The article goes on to suggest that charges may not come, as the legal standing by the police is tenuous according to several major UK law firms. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.12.135.11 (talk) 07:43, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EmoHobo. What a shame. Middle class theft is still theft, a smug legal disclaimer does not mean that he didn't know exactly what he was doing...along with the snivelling "fight the power" fan boys downloading (read: stealing) stuff by clicking on his links. You don't need to be a lawyer to see that the kid is guilty as sin of facilitating the download of illegally copied material, but will get away with it anyway because of smug lawyers, and legalities on linking (The Guardian makes the facile, specious point of *snigger* "google must be illegal then"). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.53.133 (talk) 23:48, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I love how using the word 'smug' twice in one paragraph combined with calling pro-piracy people 'snivelling fan boys' doesn't make you yourself look smug at all. But besides that, the difference between what he did and what, say, the pirate bay does is that you can't directly download the vids from the site: You can only watch them. So it's not really stealing, just borrowing. Besides, what was he 'stealing' anyway? I still pay for cable. I only used the site because it was more convenient than waiting for them to air the rerun i need to catch the House episode I missed. IMO taking this down was just some distraction done by the UK gov. so the many anti-piracy people would lay off a little. Not sure if it'll work or not. 24.86.58.173 04:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any way you slice it, it is stealing. The phrases "pro-piracy" and "So it's not really stealing" validate that. Piracy is a crime...not something you are for or against. Think of NAMBLA, the pro paedophile group...does that make it a worthy cause? Borrowing something you haven't paid for is a crime. I can't go into an electronics retailer "borrow" a PC, and then return it when I have finished with it...unpaid for. Use the pirate sites, sure, but don't make out you are the vanguard of some moral crusade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.17.53.133 (talk) 10:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, under UK law it is not stealing. I have added suitable citation etc to the article. This appears to be a common misconception, not helped by FACT standing for "the Federation Against Copyright Theft" (as there is no such crime as 'Copyright Theft'). Your example of taking a PC without consent falls under UK law as stealing (taking without consent) whereas if you merely copied (somehow) the physical PC and left with the copy yet did not remove the original this would be legal - interestingly FACT in some of their adverts at the begining of DVDs deliberately confuses the issue. I'm not sure how you equate copying files or viewing copies of files with child molestation though, I think you might be confused on this matter. --ASH1977LAW 01:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to laugh a moment at the idea of me being the vanguard of some crusade... Or having morals.

Okay, now that's over with, comparing a group dedicated to allowing small children to decide whether or not they're ready to have sex with much older men to a collection of people who just don't like to wait for the reruns to air to watch their fav. episode of Death Note is pretty drastic. Or even use it (like I did) to watch the Hitch hiker's Guide to the Universe series, which doesn't air anymore.
Besides, most people using the site will, in all likelyhood, be using cable as well. I tried Iassure you, to come up for some way your computer analogy could be modified in a witty way to fit my argument, but I can't. Basically the idea is that we've already paid for it, we're just watching it outside of the strict schedule that can't be changed because some lard but (points to self) was too busy to catch the last episode of House (points to KFC).
And besides, you can be pro-<insert crime here>. Example: There are pro-hate people, despite the fact that racism is against the law (At least up in Canada).
And like I said, I'm no vanguard, I'm just argumentative and bored. 70.70.97.117 03:42, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Date

At the top of the page it says the arrest was on october 18th but the bottom says october 19th? is that an accident or am i missing something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Danos (talk • contribs) 20:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The closure was a first for major UK-based pirate sites and the owner, a 26-year-old man from Cheltenham, was arrested for charges relating to facilitating copyright infringement over the internet" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.0.221.198 (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name of article

The site actually called itself TV Links not tv-links.co.uk. I nominate that this article be renamed to reflect that. We don't have The Pirate Bay article named as thepiratebay.org now do we. :) topher67 08:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Done. Thanks. --Kizor 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Tag

I erased the deletion tag, as the issue has apparantly been settled. Wikilost 07:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Kizor 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What about the second round? -- topher67 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone nominated it again? Wikilost 05:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. However someone needs to update the talk page so that people don't make the mistake I did.

Creator of the site

Did "Sin" really create this site more then a year ago? If I can recall it right, it wasn't him. The establishment of the site should go to the ones who did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.230.178.159 (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 29: / Line 29: @@
 :::::: People who engage in software and media piracy will be the first to complain when draconian laws are passed controlling the internet, even though it will be down to them and their activities. Telling someone you know someone who can supply you with pirated goods is guilt by association. If I advised someone of an individual I knew who sold guns, and the police found out about it, I am sure they would be very interested to meet me...as they were very interested to meet this criminal.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/217.17.53.133|217.17.53.133]] ([[User talk:217.17.53.133|talk]]) 11:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
 :::There was absolutely no copyright infringement with tv-links.co.uk!!! They did not host or store or distribute ANY files on their site, nor did they collect any money or membership fee. All they did is provide information and links to where you can find the files!! This is a back end attempt to get at the Chinese based sites that the film and television industry are incapable of shutting down!!! They are the ones hosting a majority of these files, and if you want you can search the web for these files using the (term site:website) parameter on any search engine including google and find these pirated files as easily as he did!! FACT needs to pull its head out of the sand and realize that this site was no different than YAHOO or GOOGLE... it just had a very specified purpose.  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/76.85.131.212|76.85.131.212]] ([[User talk:76.85.131.212|talk]]) 07:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
+::::::By extension of the logic displayed above, websites such as YouTube would be the guns sellers in the analogy.[[User:77.99.12.23|77.99.12.23]] 00:41, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 == Actual charge ==