As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
TV-Links, F.A.C.T., Piracy and 'The Interwebs'
LewieP
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
It seems to me that the legal system, the principals that the legal system are supposed to uphold, the rights of consumers, and technology never seem to be in synchronisation with each other.
TV-links is a web site that manages databases of sites streaming video files, or at least it was up until recently. There was zero copyrighted material hosted on TV-links without license (Legal Disclaimer taken straight from the site). In the same way that I can use google to find material which I am unlicensed to access, I could use TV-links to access material I am unlicensed to access, hell, same way I could use a peice of paper to photocopy text without license to do so (a widely encouraged activity by my university staff - anecdote lol).
The Guardian Reports -
I found it ironic that The Guardian links to an (albeit currently down) 'pirate site', the very crime which TV-links is being accused of.
The figure of £459m seems pretty ludicrous to me though, I mean on anecdotal evidence, I know of lots of people who missed the star of Lost, caught up by streaming it illegally, and then buying the DVD box set or watching it on licensed comercial TV. I highly doubt these kind of sales figures are taken into account. I also assume that the number is based on assuming that if somebody watches a film for free illegally, where the ability to do so removed, they would instantly pay full price retail instead. I know that I listen to lots of free music (Deezer.com, free releases from other bands like Smashing Pumkins, Radiohead, Harvey Danger, The Crimea) If these became suddenly unavailable for free, I would certainly not rush to the record store to buy them/equivalent media.
Furthur revalations -
F.A.C.T. (Federation Against Copyright Theft, AKA the 'You wouldn't steal a car guys) made a statement on their website.
F.A.C.T. clearly states here, on it's own website, that the crime which TV-Links is being accused of is "providing links to illegal film content". They also cite protecting users (or criminals, depending on the context apparently) from "downloading Trojans or viruses", I certainly don't this is part of F.A.C.T.s duristriction.
Generally rational tech-news site "The Register" dug a little deeper.
Interesting stuff.
Leftie blog "The New Freedom has some opinionated stuff on the topic, but I don't think it's 100% required reading, it's here if you want to see it. It is very opinionated, but they interestingly seem to have somebody 'high up' at TV-links emailing them. This thread is allready dangerously TLDR for alot of people I imagine.
So, what is the big story here?
This is, as I said at the start of this post an example of the legal system, the principals that the legal system are supposed to uphold, the rights of consumers, and technology have no synchronisation.
Copyright holders want to sue anyone not doing what they want with their content - they want the best of both worlds with regards to selling a physical product and a license. You are not encouraged or supported to back up your own media (and often content providers spend alot of money preventing you from doing so) but streaming video you do not have a license for is also illegal.
The law is way behind the technology. One set of principals is applied to photocopiers, audio cassettes and VHS cassettes, and another is applied to ones and zeros on the interwebs.
Consumers want free content. Whether onle an example (just a little sample) to determine if they want to buy the new series of 24 on DVD (they do) or as a replacement for paying a TV license or subscription fee and seeing advertising.
Everything is fucked.
Additional linking:
Petition to free owner of TV-links, and have it rehosted
F.A.C.T. Wikipedia entry
TV-Links Wikipedia entry
Youtube, a website with tones of copyright material hosted on it.
Google, a search engine that can easilly allow users to access copyrighted material illegally
*Note: My personal opinions are italicised, just to clarify what is my opinion, and what is from other sources.
Discuss, I guess...
Edit:
Yeah, this.
TV-links is a web site that manages databases of sites streaming video files, or at least it was up until recently. There was zero copyrighted material hosted on TV-links without license (Legal Disclaimer taken straight from the site). In the same way that I can use google to find material which I am unlicensed to access, I could use TV-links to access material I am unlicensed to access, hell, same way I could use a peice of paper to photocopy text without license to do so (a widely encouraged activity by my university staff - anecdote lol).
The Guardian Reports -
One of the world's most-used pirate film websites has been closed after providing links to illegal versions of major Hollywood hits and TV shows.
The first closure of a major UK-based pirate site was also accompanied by raids and an arrest, the anti-piracy group Federation Against Copyright Theft (Fact) said today.
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.
Visitors to the site could get access to major feature films, sometimes within days of their initial cinema release. Recent links took users to illegal versions of the Disney/Pixar animation sensation Ratatouille as well as to most of this summer's blockbusters.
"Sites such as TV Links contribute to and profit from copyright infringement by identifying, posting, organising, and indexing links to infringing content found on the internet that users can then view on demand by visiting these illegal sites," said a spokesman for Fact.
The group's director general Kieron Sharp said TV Links was the first major target in a campaign to crackdown on web piracy.
"The theft and distribution of films harms the livelihoods of those working in the UK film industry and in ancillary industries, as well as damaging the economy," he said.
Roger Marles, from Trading Standards said sites such as TV Links allowed people to break UK copyright law.
"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," he added.
The British Video Association estimates that at least £459m was lost to the video, film and TV industries due to piracy in 2006.
I found it ironic that The Guardian links to an (albeit currently down) 'pirate site', the very crime which TV-links is being accused of.
The figure of £459m seems pretty ludicrous to me though, I mean on anecdotal evidence, I know of lots of people who missed the star of Lost, caught up by streaming it illegally, and then buying the DVD box set or watching it on licensed comercial TV. I highly doubt these kind of sales figures are taken into account. I also assume that the number is based on assuming that if somebody watches a film for free illegally, where the ability to do so removed, they would instantly pay full price retail instead. I know that I listen to lots of free music (Deezer.com, free releases from other bands like Smashing Pumkins, Radiohead, Harvey Danger, The Crimea) If these became suddenly unavailable for free, I would certainly not rush to the record store to buy them/equivalent media.
Furthur revalations -
F.A.C.T. (Federation Against Copyright Theft, AKA the 'You wouldn't steal a car guys) made a statement on their website.
A man aged 26 from Cheltenham was arrested on Thursday (18th October) in connection with offences relating to the facilitation of copyright infringement on the Internet. The arrest came during an operation by officers from Gloucestershire County Council Trading Standards Service working with investigators from the Federation Against Copyright Theft (‘FACT’) and Gloucestershire Police. The man has been released pending further enquiries.
The site, TV Links (www.tv-links.co.uk), was providing links to illegal film content that has been camcorded from within a cinema and then uploaded to the Internet. The site additionally provided links to TV shows that were also being illegally distributed.
Sites such as TV Links contribute to and profit from copyright infringement by identifying, posting, organising, and indexing links to infringing content found on the Internet that users can then view on demand by visiting these illegal sites.
Kieron Sharp, FACT Director General, said: “We at FACT have stated very clearly that we intended to pursue those who are openly exploiting and facilitating the distribution of illegal film and TV content and this was the first major target.
The theft and distribution of films harms the livelihoods of those working in the UK film industry and in ancillary industries, as well as damaging the economy.
In addition, those visiting sites hosting illegal content run the risk of downloading Trojans or viruses that can infect their computers.â€
Roger Marles, Head of Trading Standards, said: "This practice allows people to view any one of a large number of films and television programmes directly via the website. This is illegal under UK copyright law. 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.
No physical product changes hands but the effect is the same - anyone has the opportunity to view an illegal copy of a copyrighted work. This is all done without the permission of the owners of the copyright or trade mark protection in the works being distributed.
As no control is exerted over who can visit the site and access the service, there is no regard for the age of the viewer and therefore no control of the content of what is viewed."
The operation was conducted with the assistance of BREIN, the Dutch anti-piracy body, who have served notice on the TV Links hosting provider, Leaseweb, to allow the website servers to be removed. Leaseweb is based in the Netherlands.
F.A.C.T. clearly states here, on it's own website, that the crime which TV-Links is being accused of is "providing links to illegal film content". They also cite protecting users (or criminals, depending on the context apparently) from "downloading Trojans or viruses", I certainly don't this is part of F.A.C.T.s duristriction.
Generally rational tech-news site "The Register" dug a little deeper.
Gloucestershire police have confirmed that a 26-year-old Cheltenham man at the centre of an investigation into the website TV-Links was arrested under section 92 of the Trade Mark Act, on suspicion of supplying property with a registered trademark, without permission.
The man was taken into custody on Thursday last week after an investigation by the Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) and the local trading standards office. Initial reports from FACT said he had been arrested for "offences relating to the facilitation of copyright infringement on the Internet".
TV-links, by all accounts, was (it is no more) a place where users could post links to content from TV shows, movies and so on, so that other web users could view them. The site didn't host the material directly, but did, according to reports, embed some video clips.
The man has not been charged with any offence, and has been released pending further investigation.
According to legal experts, the revelation that the 26 year-old was arrested under trademark law adds further uncertainty to an already cutting edge legal situation.
"I've never heard of using trademarks law for anything like this,"said Struan Robertson, legal eagle at Pinsent Masons, and editor of Out-Law.com.
"There are criminal provisions in the Trade Marks Act, but they are intended to catch the sale of counterfeit goods, not the supply of a service. I'd be surprised if the provision of links was found to be a criminal offence under the Trade Marks Act."
Indeed, section 92 is very clear that:
"A person does not commit an offence under this section unless- (a) the goods are goods in respect of which the trade mark is registered, or (b) the trade mark has a reputation in the United Kingdom and the use of the sign takes or would take unfair advantage of, or is or would be detrimental to, the distinctive character or the repute of the trade mark."
There has been no suggestion (so far) that TV-Links was involved in anything other than providing access, via web links, to copyrighted material.
Robertson speculated that they'd have a better chance of bringing a case for copyright offenses, but even that would be on new legal ground.
"They'd have to show that he was distributing or communicating copyrighted works. And that is a legal argument to be had between the prosecution and defence. It sounds like they are trying to crow-bar activity that looks wrong into laws that aren't really designed to deal with it," he told us.
We contacted the Federation Against Copyright Theft, but the organisation offered no further comment on what it describes as an ongoing investigation. ®
Interesting stuff.
Leftie blog "The New Freedom has some opinionated stuff on the topic, but I don't think it's 100% required reading, it's here if you want to see it. It is very opinionated, but they interestingly seem to have somebody 'high up' at TV-links emailing them. This thread is allready dangerously TLDR for alot of people I imagine.
So, what is the big story here?
This is, as I said at the start of this post an example of the legal system, the principals that the legal system are supposed to uphold, the rights of consumers, and technology have no synchronisation.
Copyright holders want to sue anyone not doing what they want with their content - they want the best of both worlds with regards to selling a physical product and a license. You are not encouraged or supported to back up your own media (and often content providers spend alot of money preventing you from doing so) but streaming video you do not have a license for is also illegal.
The law is way behind the technology. One set of principals is applied to photocopiers, audio cassettes and VHS cassettes, and another is applied to ones and zeros on the interwebs.
Consumers want free content. Whether onle an example (just a little sample) to determine if they want to buy the new series of 24 on DVD (they do) or as a replacement for paying a TV license or subscription fee and seeing advertising.
Everything is fucked.
Additional linking:
Petition to free owner of TV-links, and have it rehosted
F.A.C.T. Wikipedia entry
TV-Links Wikipedia entry
Youtube, a website with tones of copyright material hosted on it.
Google, a search engine that can easilly allow users to access copyrighted material illegally
*Note: My personal opinions are italicised, just to clarify what is my opinion, and what is from other sources.
Discuss, I guess...
Edit:
Attention morons, talk about this as a news item. Not "Damnit I knew something was wrong when I tried to watch [copyrighted material] earlier because [shaky reasoning]." This isn't productive and is just as against the rules as if you talked about which files you're currently downloading via bittorrent.
Yeah, this.
LewieP on
0
Posts
Sliders is win, the arrest is bullshit and these industry tactics of "sue you till you run out of money" need to stop.
Not exactly true. Users upload the videos to other sites, which TV-links contained the links to. FACT could have used this to send hundreds (thousands?) of DMCA notices to YouTube, MegaVideo, Veoh, and the other half a dozen video content providers that regularly stream illegal content. If these companies were required to spend enough time and money reading DMCA notices and taking down content, they might introduce a screening method or something that would actually prevent this from happening.
Instead, they decided to go for a criminal arrest. The only possible connection between TV-Links and the copyrighted material is the fact that, for some video hosts, they were posted on a TV-Links hosted page using the (for example: Youtube) embed script instead of a link that takes you off-site. Is this the line between a criminal offense of facilitation of copyright and a legal collection of URLs to illegal content? Is BREIN and FACT going to try to skew this and say that TV-Links was obstructing their ability to find the hosts of the content, when in reality the links were right there?
In related news, OiNK, a popular bittorrent tracker specializing in music, went down yesterday. It's servers have been confiscated, and it's owner arrested. This is now two criminal arrests in less than a week for something that, until now, had been a mostly civil matter. There have been raids and confiscation of bittorrent trackers servers in the past, but nothing that resulted in their owners being shoved in prison. If this holds up in court, and that is a pretty big if, they're setting a potentially very dangerous precedent.
Not only are they making it illegal to spread information about potentially illegal activity, information which could be used for any purpose mind you, including the removal of illegal files, but with the OiNK shutdown, they're further criminalizing BitTorrent as a protocol. What does it say to a court of lawmakers if someone makes an argument against Comcast's bittorrent throttling while trying to fight for Net Neutrality? They'll remember BitTorrent as a protocol that was at the center of the arrest of a man who one media outlet called the head of an "International Crime Syndicate." Would you vote to protect a crime syndicate? Not if you're a wealthy old legislator who wants to keep his job, that's for sure.
The Web and Flash video are going to do to television what Napster and MP3s did to music, and no quantity of litigation is going to prevent that. If TV networks and studios don't adapt quick, they are fucked.
Exactly. That's pretty much what happened when Napster got sued. That hit the MSM and then every mom and pop watching fox found out that you could hop on limewire or some other p2p service of the day and get music for free.
I must however say that this tactic of going after linking websites is much better for both the consumer and Hollywood than randomly suing IP ranges.
"Read twice, post once. It's almost like 'measure twice, cut once' only with reading." - MetaverseNomad
You can watch Heroes on NBC's website. You may be able to watch Prison Break on Fox's but I don't know if they stream that show.
The guy from the Oink bust is back at home now, it'll be interesting to see what happens to the poor sod.
PSN: SirGrinchX
Oculus Rift: Sir_Grinch
What about websites, surely if any of the above are illegal, then this ]BBC article is illegal too because it names sites and even links to them. Am I breaking the law for linking to that BBC article? Or is the BBC?
Am I breaking the law by linking to this penny-arcade thread? What is the difference between TV-Links and that thread? Is Penny-arcade breaking the law? Or is the poster? Or is youtube? Or is the uploader? Or is no one? Incidentally am I breaking Penny-arcades own forum rules by linking to penny-arcade?
If a man photocopies the latest comic and sticks it on a public wall (or his wall) am I breaking the law if I walk past randomly and read it.
What if I go there with the intention to read it.
What if a friend tells me where it is? What if the BBC does?
The law, and IP in general is not developed enough to deal with this.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/technology/2007/10/20/tv_links_shut_down_for_linking_.html
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
THEN THEY MUST HAVE IT
FREE THINGS FOR ALL
FAIRY TALES AND RAINBOWS
Well, as I said in a previous thread. This site, for all it "illegal" aspects shows there are massive demands for crappy quality streamed versions of their show. T
The correct response from the media companies is to put their shows on the web, streamed, without download clients and drm, in one place, and full of advertising. People will watch that rather than dodgy copies. Unfortuantly the media corps response is to get it shut down, whilst putting their fingers in their ears and shouting la, la, la and hoping a massive market demand "goes away."
Then you have free content, and money for the producers. Hell if they did it through youtube/stage6 they wouldn't even have to pay hosting costs.
As this is about a UK site I'm talking about free to air "freeview" channels. Sky etc, have larger issues with their subscription model.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Percentage of people who want something for nothing: 100%
Percentage of people who are lazy: ~100%
Percentage of people who are technically literate enough to keep up with piracy: <<100%
Percentage of people who would put up with reasonable levels of advertising for convience, quality, and no broken links: <100%
Which implies a viable audience for ad supported web streaming content.
Lots of dicks run ad-block, but yet ad supported websites (like this) are viable. How so?
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
I suppose the answer to that would be to shut down those sites as they have done this time. The difference with that though would be that the broadcasters have already provided a quality alternative. If that kind of service was easily available I know I wouldn't have a problem putting up with some adverts to use it.
Gee, I wonder what Sylar is going to do this week? Oh that's right, he'll probably obey his thirst.
Then why do NBC, ABC, and FOX all have streaming versions of most of their TV shows on their websites? In some cases with extra content (like the Heroes commentaries) not available through broadcast television. With (at best) only 2-3 minutes of commercials per episode. And why, if this isn't a profitable way to handle their properties, has it lasted for a whole year now?
Basically, why isn't what you're saying happening when companies actually do what people want?
Because people do want something for free. And companies can handle that. As long as 200 million + other people want something for money.
The percentage of people who watch the live web streams is small compared to the people who watch it on TV.
I think you'll find it's watch Hiro drive in his product placed car they obliged to force into the plot and mention about 6 times a show (which also sponsers the comic).
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Actually I'd be willing to bet he's driving a Nissan Rogue up through mexico on his way to buy Dell computers before he stops at home to play Heavenly Sword.
Product placement is already alive and well in broadcast television. It's not enough. The biggest problem with streaming content is that when you watch Heroes on your computer, you are no longer a Nielsen household. They're still getting their ad revenue, but ratings are still important, and the networks are losing out on them with every viewer who switches to legal (or illegal) online broadcasts.
More viewers means more ad revenue. Less repeats means more viewers. Streaming video means less need for repeats.
Do you see another reason why this whole thing works well for TV shows?
Shouldn't the networks start looking towards site hits instead of ratings in the future?
In the UK, all channels bar the BBC (and channel 4) on freeview, are entirely ad supported. There is no reason, they can't transmit the same content online as over the airwaves, with the same adverts and still be profitable.
If your product can't survive in the modern computer age, then watching your company die is to be expected.
Lets all go and cry about the Loom taking all them jobs from hand stichers, or the death of sheet music.
I'm fine with media firms adapting to the internet age whilst shutting down pirate sites. But to demand a legal help to maintain the past worth of your company is as ridiculous as sheet music sellers demanding that the goverment ban phonographs and the radio because their cutting into their profits and turning them into a niche.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
I just think it's silly that people can't understand why companies object to this.
I would bet a me eating my cock that every time someone watches one of the streaming shows that view gets recorded. It's a whole lot more accurately than the Nielsen rating scheme. And seeing how boxsets can bring back series from the dead, is it really a large leap for networks to go "hey, this show gets a hell of a lot of viewers online, and only sub-par ratings. If most of the people who watch this show on one medium or another buy the DVDs, it'll be more than worth it to keep in production"?
Also, last year NBC didn't host The Office or My Name is Earl on their site. Last year both shows were already considered huge hits, so they didn't add them this year to see if it would help spread exposure for the shows. I think the online system is working for them, or else they wouldn't add in shows that already have a large following. Correct me if my logic is faulty here.
Except that it costs more to broadcast online. Plus, that's all very well for freeview, I can watch that for free anyway. What about cable channels? Why is anyone going to pay for HBO when they can watch The Sopranos and Dexter (or whatever, I don't get the commie US stations here) for free?
I object to global warming, but that doesn't stop it happening.
Adapt or die.
And I can't think of anything easier to turn into money than streaming content.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Tired because of the element of truth in it yes.
Oh come on. Did I say that? Of course it isn't. All I'm saying is the concept of show being broadcast at a specific time was only developed due to the technical limitations of the TV format. There is no reason, what so ever, to assume that that model is applicable for the Television of the future.
They can either get on board now whilst streaming a show to your PC is a tiny market, co-op it, and make it pay, as the concept grows and TV's and PC's become more and more similar or they can stick fingers in their ears and let piracy overwhelm them.
The BBC is doing this. It knows that to keep it's license fee in ten years time, it needs to be more than just a service that streams to TV's.
2009 is a year of Updates - one every Monday. Hopefully. xx
Wrong. And I'll tell you what's even worse. I live in Belgium but am a British national. Like the other 98% of the Belgian population I have cable, cause otherwise you only get crappy state channels. Normally the Beeb won't sell their BBC1 and BBC2 broadcasts to other countries, as that is what BBC Prime and BBC World and stuff are for. For some reason, because the most Western part of Belgium can pick up the BBC broadcasts OTA, the cable companies made a deal with the BBC to re-broadcast BBC1 and BBC2. Of course, this isn't free, so I'm effectively paying a license fee.
Yet I still get treated like any other johnny foreigner on their site, not being able to use their nice TV streaming service etc.
I think I'm arguing against my point rather than for it though, as I think this just shows why TV networks don't like doing this stuff too much, the audience breakdowns get much harder.
I really, really disagree with the idea though that if the networks had their own stream sites, that people would still go to youtube or whatever to watch it instead cus of the ads. Like Lave said, people would be too lazy or ignorant to know they had an option and even if they knew, why go the knock-off if the original is just as free? TV-Links had banner ads and stuff as well no one seemed to mind.
Also, my GOD that woman's phone had a huge sprint logo on it.
Woah! hold on a second there.
I am a dick because I use adblock?
What if I listen to a comercial radio station, and change the channel when ads come on? what if I record a TV program and fast forwards through the Ads? What if I rip a legally purchased DVD so I can skip being accused of being a theif and other ads? What if I walk past a billboard and ignor it?
How I browse is no one elses business. I rock a bunch of extensions to protect my privacy (my personal favourite is TrackMeNot)
Just because people who run websties want a business model to work doesn't mean it has too. Back when I was on 56K I blocked ads because they slowed down the internet so much. Now I do it because they harm my browsing experiance. The majority of web sites with Ads have them so obtrusive and glaring that it makes it harder to navigate the site.
Hell, my blog has Ads (relatively unobtrusive ones at that) and I earn money from them (about $30 so far, not much but it ads up) and I tell vistors how to install Adblock if they don't like them.
Check this article for more, I have similar opinions to the author, but am possibly less coherant.
This is flat out incorrect. Stage6 will host any video you want at DVD quality, for absolutely free, they just need the copyright holders permission.
The BBC is a complete anomaly because Im paying for the ability for you to watch their shows for free, just like 60 million other British nationals who all have to pay a TV license fee every year.
that said, you are right. The BBC doesnt live off of the license fees alone, it lives off of quality programs and dvd/rerun sales.
I mean shit, Planet earth was one of the best selling dvds for a long time.