The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
tv-links.co.uk Shutdown, Sin arrested
fredphelps
Registered User new member
Registered User new member
Here is a link to the story http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,2195407,00.html
Here is a link to a petition to help get this guy out. http://www.petitiononline.com/21212594/petition.html
I don't think the petition is important. I think money for a lawyer would help. If someone starts a PayPal account for donations to get this guy a lawyer please let me know. These kind of cases are going to be setting important precedents (Yes this is in the UK) we should all care about.
Here is a link to a petition to help get this guy out. http://www.petitiononline.com/21212594/petition.html
I don't think the petition is important. I think money for a lawyer would help. If someone starts a PayPal account for donations to get this guy a lawyer please let me know. These kind of cases are going to be setting important precedents (Yes this is in the UK) we should all care about.
fredphelps on
0
Posts
they don't it be like it is but it do
I don't think I've ever seen an online petition amount to anything either.
Yeah I could watch John Stewart on You tube, but I don't, I watch it on my TV, why? Because I like to lay down on my couch instead of sit-up at my computer and also, my TV is way bigger than the blurry little screen on You Tube.
The thing I don't get is, who the fuck is still watching commercials anyway? I don't care, what time zone you are in, The Daily Show comes on at 11:15. I can usually time it so that I don't watch a single commercial.
I really have to thank the inventor of the DVR. It gives us all our lives back. even when I am just channel surfing, If I come across something that looks fun to watch. First thing I do is pause it and walk away, go check email, let the dog out, make a snack whatever. I refuse to watch commercials.
Ack, there is one exception, Sports. I have to watch sports Live. There is something about seeing it when it happens that I can't get over.
I'll be honest, I don't know what will happen with the owner of this website, I think it is stupid for him to be in jail, I think it's stupid for individuals to be sue for thousands of dollars for music downloads. Unfortunately, I don't think "the system" is going to gain a sense of rationality anytime soon, in the US, the UK or anywhere else for that matter. We can only hope that more and more people who create this Intellectual property go the way of Radiohead and just release it themselves for direct download with no rules against copying.
http://www.inrainbows.com/
Without knowing anything about the laws for piracy: A shifty character who sells pirated Chinese DVDs from his van outside a shopping centre is still breaking piracy laws, even if he didn't personally burn the discs - right?
Yes, but I'm pretty sure the other shifty character who, when you ask him where you can find some copied DVDs, points you to the correct store is not breaking the law.
But isn't that how his site generates traffic (and thus makes his endeavor profitable)? It's basically like a finder's fee- the guy who hands out fliers advertising it. He's making money off pirating.
The argument goes something like this: buying and selling controlled drugs is illegal, and that's logical and makes sense. Now, suppose someone approaches you looking to buy drugs. You don't have any drugs, but you know that there's a guy who hangs around two streets away who does. Would/should it be illegal for you to point that guy out to the person looking for drugs?
In the same way, sites like this aren't hosting any infringing content, they're just pointing out where it can be found to anyone who asks.
There are plenty of people who make money from illegal activity. Look at the number of books writen by former prostitutes/drug dealers/mercenaries/etc. Should we be arresting all of them?
Hey man I have a tip for REALLY getting your life back:
Once most households have media center-style setups in their living rooms, things will change. I assume the major networks will begin posting HD versions of their shows on their websites either right after or at the same time that they air on TV, rather than the lower quality versions that are on there now.
If they were to say "Wednesday at 10pm on ABC and ABC.com" and you could choose your start time at or anytime after 10pm that night, people would use their media center, go to the site, and watch it at-will online in full quality, even if it has the same number of commercials. Just disable fast-forward until after the first viewing has completed, and bingo, companies are happy.
XBL: QuazarX
Free speech covers most all of it, I believe. However, this isn't a book it's basically an ad for known illegal acts that doesn't even try to hide it like some of those 'escort services' and 'massage parlors' do.
It affects the difficulty of prosecutors to gain evidence and bring charges against someone who'll try to claim plausible deniability. Plus the overlapping of conspiracy and acting as an accomplice type charges.
I can't see how this is any more illegal than telling your friend you know where he can buy weed or something.
There as a book on "how to be a hired killer" that I believe got banned a while back, but I haven't read up on it in a while so I could be mistaken. It turned out to be written by a housewife.
Helping your friend find a pot dealer is not legal
Of course it's hard to catch someone helping their friend find drugs
I host a podcast about movies.
Yes, tube, I am saying that if you rebroadcast something given away for free, the entire tv industry should work for free. This is an occasion for a rolleye, but I just don't do that.
No, I think television needs to evolve - people are tivoing the TV anyway, blocked commercials are on the way out, period, and lashing out against this guy is just a spasm against change. He's enabling some people to do what some other people are doing in their home anyway - the only difference is a technicality. I really don't think there's a huge community of non-tv watchers using tvlinks type sites exclusively - the userbase for those sites is (relatively affluent) internet users who are watching from work, sharing the show virally, etc. In other words, a good demo providing good word of mouth. If the courts here press that actual damages be shown, an impartial study might well show that such sites actually increase the home viewership of shows - I find it literally incredible that such a study would show a diminished viewership or diminished DVD sales because of low-fi online streams. In the lack of any bonafide damages, this is really just an attempt to wrangle a few more cycles out of a dying business model via legal intimidation.
I host a podcast about movies.
There is definitely a confused issue about when & where you can watch television - more so in the UK, where we actually pay a television license fee ostensibly to watch the TV (practically, to pay the BBC), so the emphasis is on us as customers paying for a product. Furthermore, it is perfectly legal to record & rewatch that product on VHS, DVD, TiVO whatever. Even further more, you won't be arrested for lending someone a video you recorded off the television, though I'm not sure whether it is de jure legal. Problems arise with the number of people you are showing a video of TV to, and the setting (schools had a whole issue with this in the 80's), but general practice - again not 100% on the law - is now that you can do it, so long as you aren't charging - moreover, the emphasis on not charging is more to protect the people who would pay to watch, rather than protecting the production company. Essentially, there are so many different methods of viewing, such ubiquitous TV use, so many different categories of production (public, commercial, private), and such fast evolution of technology, that the law long ago stopped trying to sort it out, so we now have a mess of contradictory principles.
Fundamental problem is that television funding is totally & utterly fucked. The business models are bizarre if you think about them; the companies really should fold tomorrow. Most of the big news re: television over here revolves around funding: the BBC desperately trying to up & renew the license fee; all the major channels have this year been scandalised by programs charging huge rates on fake phone-ins; late last year there was a trend in phone-in game shows that took over for a few months before it was judged illegal & relegated to digital. The basic problem is, like JohnnyCache says, they give it away for free...and now that the technology exists to record & spread the original broadcast over as large an area as the television itself, there is no incentive for people to watch the actual broadcast (thus phone in competitions to entice them), so the bottom has fallen out of their funding re: advertising & subsidiaries. Suing pirates is just the Dutch boy with his finger in the dam; if they don't want to be flooded, they have to invent an entirely new business model for TV.
broadcasters do try to embrace online availability by keeping eps online for viewing for the duration of the season. They can financially integrate it through limited advertising.
thst's just really what they all should do, i think only NBC does it at all
Yes, well. That rather depends on your personal view of 'no better than television'. Theatre, films, art, concerts, circuses etc etc all generally require you pay for a ticket to see one show. There is certainly an argument to be made to say television can do the same - ie pay per view channels. Problem would be making that argument after decades of essentially free use; not going to happen. Also, TV doesn't help itself by trying to 'embrace' the net by broadcasting some programs for free & on demand there - they make a legal precedent re: piracy very hard to set, because they want it both ways, so will probably end up getting screwed either way.
Oh, another thing I forgot to say re: the funding issue. Ever hear of any court cases because someone pirated a radio show? Same distribution model as TV, often the same companies? Law is almost identical (at least in the UK) or is in fact the same law. But no court cases, because the reach of radio is huge & the overheads very low. Radio funding not a problem, thus nobody really cares if it is pirated.
The other issue comes with the age of the internet: Keeping up with the USA. Or country borders in general. It's so frustrating getting programmes several months to a year or even years later than the US, especially because by the time you get to watch it, everyone else online has already watched it all and is no longer interested in discussing it with you. Do you avoid the spoilers, or not?
Basically the police showed up, stole all their servers and started an "investigation". Since they have not done anything illegal under swedsh law and the police only acted due to being pushed by American diplomats (who were pushed by Corporations) they have just kept the servers.
- "Proving once again the deadliest animal of all ... is the Zoo Keeper" - Philip J Fry
The Media corperations should have seen tv-links and gone:
Unfortunatly they actually went:
For instance, I missed an episode of the IT crowd. Now I could download the Channel Four on Demand, Windows Only Client, and register and Pay 99p to watch a streamed edition of it up to 7 days after broadcast (I believe thats the case anyhow). Which is the only current UK attempt at this But I don't own Windows. If they just did this with adverts, they would have got my money.
If I didn't break the law I would have given up on the show and not watched the rest. And thus they would have missed the chance of even more money.
And on top of that, a guy being arrested for putting links to official, legal corperate sites sets a terrible precendent. Let's go sue a load of posters in the youtube thread. Linking is the internet equivalent of telling about. Telling people about things is not typically a crime. But yet a case can be made for it on the internet. Are torrent sites more than links? A good arguement could be made that they are. Was TV-links? I don't think so. It strange and nebulous. The ramifications for non-copyright issues on the internet could be very important.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
The broadcast industry is creating a false us vs them climate.
IRT the question about taping radio -- it actually was an issue in the US around the time cassettes were introduced.
I host a podcast about movies.
If they go with copyright infringment then they need to show that he was distributing material, but if he used a logo on his site then they might be able to get him for something.
Risky. Pot's probably alright, but the explosves might get you done under terrorism laws. That said there was a member of the British Nationalist Party (white power tossers) who was found with a cache of explosives in his house. He avoided terrorism charges by claiming that the explosives were intended to be used to defend White Britain in the coming race war.
He still got hit for having the explosives, but the word "intent" in the terrorism laws saved him from a rather long spell in chokey.
Before OiNK, I pretty much exclusively bought used CDs or visited the library for music. Should that be illegal?