Talk:TV Links

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

⚖
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.
??? This article has not yet received a quality rating on the assessment scale.
??? This article has not yet received an importance assessment on the assessment scale.

Bearian 20:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussions before considering re-nomination:

Contents

[edit] 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)

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)
Someone has registered the domain name again (www.tv-links.co.uk). The site might be coming back.
The site will come back (duh)it's already in the works ;)
Yes when I enter the domain its says "Something here soon" so it might come back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo123spartan (talk • contribs) 18:58, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Is it back again? http://www.tv-links.cc/movie/index.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.53.57.75 (talk) 05:25, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

OMG thats almost like TV links but theres no forum but most things work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halo123spartan (talk • contribs) 23:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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

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)
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)
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)
Considering he was released without charge, doesn't referring to him as a criminal class as libel? --Charax (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
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)
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
Also, telling someone where they can get guns isn't illegal, though the police still may want to talk to you.24.255.175.86 (talk) 06:23, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


As far as I can see, the point to be made here regarding the dubious nature of any charges is that if the police already know who the "gunsellers" are i.e. for example stage6.divx.com, but cannot do anything about it due it being outside their jurisdiction, is it really illegal to tell people that they can just cross the border (that is, leave the site [sorry for horribly overextending this metaphor]) to get the goods? Bearing in mind that the internet has no form of border control, people using the internet are free to connect to a website from any country. Lewyblue (talk) 04:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

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)
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)

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)

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)
I love how using the word 'smug' twice in one paragraph combined with calling pro-piracy people 'snivellingu 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)
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)
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)
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)

Actually, it's not even borrowing since you never at anytime actually posses the material. It's more like watching your neighbors' tv through a window. (User talk:24.255.175.86|talk]])

[edit] 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)

"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)

[edit] 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)

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

[edit] Deletion Tag

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

Thanks! --Kizor 14:07, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
What about the second round? -- topher67 22:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
Someone nominated it again? Wikilost 05:06, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Never mind. However someone needs to update the talk page so that people don't make the mistake I did.


[edit] 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)

David Rock created and owned the site and I've changed the TV Links article to say so. Phreakkk (talk) 17:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-protection?

With all the recent vandalism, even with the `please help expand` tag, maybe we should consider asking for semi-protection? Random89 (talk) 07:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Something...

The web page itself is now showing three words in TNR - 'Something here Soon' —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.104.235 (talk) 03:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, since it says something here soon, i think it is safe to assume they are at least trying to rebuild the site. Therefore its status should be "Under Consruction".Random89 (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
it is under construction but not under that domain —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACDavid (talk • contribs) 20:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Proof of that? Tehniobium (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Don't know if this is proof but [1] 76.66.26.111 (talk) 07:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
No it ain't proof, it's a fake, and i would give you proof but i'll have to kill u after lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by ACDavid (talk • contribs) 21:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to think that the newly registered Tv LInks has been re-registered by a copycat. The Somthing here soon sign has been up for mounths with no change. If someone has more information or other thoughts please respond

I just checked the whois for the page - it doesn't contain much info - however a copycat would surely use the domain as soon as possible, as waiting pretty much devaluates the domain name? It may be just a guess, but I'm fairly certain its back under the original owner. Tehniobium (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit Warring on Talk Page

I'm not sure exactly what happened to this page, but everyone here should know not to undo or edit other contributor's posts on the talk page. I have restored the version of the page which I believe has the most comments intact. If anyone had something deleted that they feel should be heard, please re-add it. Thanks. Random89 (talk) 20:15, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV tag

Hiya :)

I've just added a POV tag. Reading the article, I seem to get the impression that it says that TV Links never linked to content, that the Act the author was arrested under didn't apply to it, that FACT's "claims" are biased etc etc. Now, these may all be true, but I just don't think the other side's been said. I know people might side with the site, against the authority taking it away, or they might be trying to do nothing of the sort. Anyway, I think it could do with a check. Thanks everyone, Drum guy (talk) 23:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

To be honest...I don't see what your saying. I've removed your tag. Please clarify, and only add tag If you actually have some kind of example of whats biased in the artice. Thanks Tehniobium (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] History of Piracy

The article states piracy began with Napster. Maybe Napster brought it into the world of the everyday computer user, but the actual distribution of copyrighted works online has existed virtually since the internet's inception. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.148.49 (talk) 11:38, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Just a friendly reminder

Linking to sites which contain copyright violations is not allowed on Wikipedia per Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking_to_copyrighted_works. Please do not put links to active TV Links like websites on Wikipedia or this article, as they will be removed by me. ViperSnake151 18:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Tv-links have never been convicted of hosting copyrighted material. Actually, let me clarify that, they never have hosted any copyrighted material. They have linked to copyrighted material...but then if that is illegal linking to google, or any other search engine would also be illegal. Even TPB is linked in its article, and you think tv-links, which by the way still doesn't display anything else than "Something here soon" is violating wikipedia rules? I don't mean to sound unfriendly, I just strongly disagree with you :)
On a side not wikipedia doesn't seem to have any problem linking to youtube although they clearly DO host copyrighted works...
Tehniobium (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Linking to youtube does not inherently violate any guideline or policy. But linking in an article to an copyright violation hosted on youtube violates our copyright policy as mentioned, as well as the external links guideline. So maybe it's not very widely enforced, but meh. As to links to tv-links-ish websites, there's really no compelling argument to include them here unless they've been mentioned by reliable sources as being replacements for TV-Links, you know, since Wikipedia is not a directory of websites that random editors like. It's also completely unclear to me why you restored completely unverified information. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:12, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
All of the above editors are right to a certain extent. TV Links is notable, therefore we have an article on it. However, "replacement" sites are not. I am removing mention of sites such as tv-links.cc as they are not notable, they MAY (and I don't necessarily believe it) violate WP:Copyright, and it is a very slippery slope of including other linksites. Random89 (talk) 23:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slogan

Is it Better than a TV remote or Better than a remote control? The logo on the page would seem to suggest the latter. Random89 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] it's back online

http://tv-links.cc/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.16.129 (talk) 05:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

>Your poor grammar would suggest you are simply ignorant and incapable of reading the above discussion, and not actually trying to get this added to the page, so in this case WP:AGF would seems to demonstrate your lack of basic intelligence. Random89 (talk) 06:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
I would like to apologize to the IP editor above, my comments last night were uncalled for and I retract them, claiming bad temper from insomnia as my meager defense. It is accepted on this page that tvlinks-cc and other "mirror" or "similar" sites are simply recreations and not the original site, if you have other information please bring it to our attention. For more info please see the above comments on this talk page. Thanks. Random89 (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Until someone comes up with a reliable source to say that this is TV-links, and not just another copycat, any edit made to that effect will be reverted. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:05, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Just to chill this a bit, I'm requesting semi-protection on this page. ViperSnake151 13:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Mention of mirrors in the article

Should the article not note that there is at least one mirror serving the exact content of tv-links available? Since this was the 26th most visited site in the UK and no charges have been filed against the owner, it would seem that intentionally not mentioning this fairly important detail is both asking for the edits that Someguy1221 refers to and an overt omission of information for no good reason.

I logged in to update the page to say it was back online (at http://tv-links.cc ) and only realised when checking this page that this is supposedly a mirror. Andy (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

It should not be mentioned since this article is specifically about tv-links.co.uk, and no other website. Only a mirror that is actually verifiably associated with the original website should be mentioned, and that has not been demonstrated. And we simply have nothing to go on but our own perceptions that this is a legitimate reincarnation of TV Links, and the new website is operating from Panama FFS. So I'll repeat, when a reliable source suggests a connection, we can mention it, and if the owner of the old site claims responsibility, we can mention it, but until that happens the only verifiable fact is that it looks the same, which, by itself, is never deserving of a mention (it would also be considered original research, claiming or suggesting the site has returned, when there is no actual proof it). Someguy1221 (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
There is another mirror which looks, at least in appearance, a true mirror. [2] HR91 (talk) 22:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with removal, but I suggest a compromise. Placed under a sub heading "legacy" the sites that are "paying homage" to tv-links.co.uk could be shown, which could be included in the references such as "several sites [ref][ref][ref]". This seems to be obviously the case, given the website names. Agree?. 20:38, 15 march 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that unless we can source that one of these "replacement sites" has risen to prominence in the same way the original did, we should avoid mentioning any, as unless there are one or two sites we can list with references as being the most notable, then we run the risk of simply becoming a link farm. Random89 20:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] What is this?

http://www.tv-links.eu/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.123.203 (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is one of the myriad of sites that of sprung up since TV Links became well known and then shut down. It is trying to mimic the original TV Links name and style to cash in on its popularity. Random89 06:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Well, I had to go this far

I made my own specialized user warning template for people who add information about TV Links clones to this article. Don't forget, you have to subst it just like every other warning template. ViperSnake151 17:27, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Random89 18:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New TV Links?

tv-links.cc seems to be updated with new videos -and it has the same format as the old tv links did? Does anyone know anything about this?--danielfolsom 02:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I saw that section - however it was under the assumption that the link was a mirror, this site seems to be updated (as it has newer movies), which mirrors, at least in my experience, usually aren't.--danielfolsom 20:51, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
Mirror is simply a bad term; it's really a copycat. You can't well have a mirror for something that no longer exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)