Print 89 comment(s) - last by Elton1.. on Oct 25 at 4:54 AM rankled the media industry for long enough according to British authorities

Marking the first closure of its kind against a UK-based piracy site, was raided and shut down by British authorities late last week. According to the United Kingdom (FACT), the raid also culminated with the arrests of the site’s 26-year-old webmaster and part of the site’s moderation staff. The raid was carried out through a coordinated effort involving investigators from FACT and the local police. provided links to TV shows posted on various video-sharing websites, like YouTube or Google Video. The site didn’t in actually host any copyrighted content – a fact that forum posters throughout the internet have pointed out – and oftentimes the sites that TV-Links linked to did nothing to remove infringing content.

According to FACT, “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, director general for FACT said that TV-Links is only the first target in a larger “crackdown” on web piracy.

“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,” wrote Jack Schofield, a blogger and commentator for The Guardian. “Indeed …  they actually host plenty of illegal content on their own video site, YouTube, which has a UK operation.”

“This effectively makes the entire internet illegal,” wrote ‘Rich’ of The New Freedom. “A man is now in prison because he runs a site where other people can link to low-resolution TV shows, hosted by Google. FACT did not raid Google, they raided a site which merely links to TV shows.”

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By sidhu663 on 10/20/2007 5:58:59 PM , Rating: 5
im pretty sure 99% of the people involved in the raid use google. I doubt they would wanna take google down.

RE: Google
By EidolWays on 10/20/2007 6:37:39 PM , Rating: 5
It's more likely they were wary of the rather deadly, but very user-friendly and Web 2.0-compatible, auto-cannons stationed around Google's place of business.

The Google Autocannon™! It's in beta, of course.

RE: Google
By Polynikes on 10/20/2007 8:56:21 PM , Rating: 2
I need me some of those things.

RE: Google
By splint on 10/21/2007 12:31:43 PM , Rating: 3
“Are you still there?”

RE: Google
By rtrski on 10/21/2007 12:42:10 PM , Rating: 1
Kudos for the Portal ref!!

Those guns cracked me up constantly, even while they were smearing the characters precious bodily fluids on the nice clean walls.


RE: Google
By idconstruct on 10/22/2007 12:00:03 AM , Rating: 2
"Who are you?!?"

RE: Google
By nwyman on 10/24/2007 8:28:29 AM , Rating: 2
"Put me down!"

RE: Google
By wordsworm on 10/20/07, Rating: -1
RE: Google
By Ardan on 10/21/2007 12:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
No, they were founded in Menlo Park and are headquartered in Mountain View, California.

RE: Google
By wordsworm on 10/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: Google
By afkrotch on 10/21/2007 5:25:35 AM , Rating: 2
but sure as hell can block Google from being accessed by Brits.

RE: Google
By Muirgheasa on 10/21/2007 11:21:15 AM , Rating: 2
Em, no, there's no state internet censorship anywhere in Europe (as far as I know anyway), and certainly not in Britain. Where are you getting this from?

RE: Google
By essjae on 10/21/2007 2:58:26 PM , Rating: 3
Yahoo auctions was blocked in Germany and France for selling Nazi memorabilia.

They were also blocked from selling Chinese stuff with the Nazi-like symbol that predated the Nazi's by 100's or 1000s of years.

Seems like internet censorhip, no?

RE: Google
By GlassHouse69 on 10/22/2007 12:07:08 AM , Rating: 2
funny thing is that France allowed its country to be cleansed of Jewish people without a fight, sold their estates and lands to other non-jewish french people...

oh, and basically bent over backward to Hitler in every way except for a VERY rare few.

Europe is the most hypocritcal, self righteous place around it seems.

RE: Google
By CyborgTMT on 10/22/2007 2:30:25 AM , Rating: 1
You need retake your history classes because none of that is true.

When Germany started attacking in 1940 France placed most of their defense around Paris and in the Maginot Line. The German forces went around the line, mostly through the Ardennes Forest, on May 10th. By the 20th German forces were outside Paris. It then took the Germans till June 14th to capture the city. With the city defenders gone the remainder of the French forces were now cut off in the Line. They continued fighting, completely holding off the Italian army and putting up serious resistance to the Germans until France 'surrendered' on June 22. In total France lost over 130,000 soldiers during that span and another 100,000+ till the war ended.

RE: Google
By Motley on 10/22/2007 4:01:35 AM , Rating: 1
Sorry, I think most of us consider holding out for 42 days (May 10th - June 22nd) to be surrendering without a fight.

RE: Google
By Christopher1 on 10/23/2007 2:56:44 AM , Rating: 2
I don't. Not when you remember that compared to the German army..... the French didn't stand a snowballs chance on the sun of beating the German's back, even if they were to go to 'suicide' raids.

RE: Google
By dtm4trix on 10/23/2007 4:11:52 AM , Rating: 2
The French have never really been good fighters (except Napoleon). The French tanks at that time were superior to German tanks, in addition the French tanks out numbered the Germans as well. The French were beat by using WW1 tactics against a WW2 adversary. In the end it was superior German tactics that beat the French.

RE: Google
By MoonRocket on 10/22/2007 2:59:37 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that you are probably American makes your post one of beautiful irony.

RE: Google
By DarkElfa on 10/22/2007 12:11:12 PM , Rating: 2
Don't forget that they also now have the largest Muslim population outside of the Middle East it seems.

RE: Google
By Oregonian2 on 10/22/2007 3:27:40 PM , Rating: 2
More than Malaysia?

RE: Google
By brizz on 10/22/2007 5:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
Or Indonesia, the most populous muslim nation in the world..

RE: Google
By Justin Case on 10/21/2007 8:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
Google is a multinational company, it has local branches in most European countries, just as many European companies have branches in the US. As such, Google is (partly, at least) subject to UK law.

And while the UK police cannot (legally) arrest people in other countries (unless they label them "unlawful combatants" first, of course), they can issue an international warrant and ask for those people to be extradited.

RE: Google
By slickr on 10/22/2007 6:02:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well google is hosted in US but from all the stupid things we've seen google has a .uk domain so UK police can actually go to US and arrest google and all its staff.
I would like to see something like that happening.

RE: Google
By dwalton on 10/22/2007 2:36:06 PM , Rating: 2
When google start ignoring take down notices of illegal content they probably will get arrested and sued.

RE: Google
By christojojo on 10/21/2007 9:14:28 PM , Rating: 2
As a Yank, I want the world to be reassured; We don't want to share Google or McDonald's or even Walmart. That's right we want to keep all that high culture, life fulfilling (not to mention gut enlarging fun) over here. We wouldn't want to impose on you further than we did the past century or so....

But you see we're having trouble controlling these buggers. we tell them to play fair and all that other rubbish and well the next thing you know is Google is in London playing with the Queen. Walmart is in Germany celebrating Oktoberfest. McDonalds is eating fried chicken in Paris.

So sorry to bother you, just send them back and we'll forget the whole thing.

RE: Google
By Frallan on 10/22/2007 5:27:21 AM , Rating: 3
Man - I wish we could but we have the issue of freedom here. We Europeans arn't allowed to do that.

RE: Google
By dwalton on 10/22/2007 10:52:47 AM , Rating: 3
Theres a distinct difference in providing a service thats abused by some of its users and providing a service thats promotes that abuse.

By sprockkets on 10/20/2007 6:14:00 PM , Rating: 5
At least the Daily show did the right thing and now allows access to all of the shows content. Before, the only way to do so was via You Tube.

Come on people, there is such a big market for this. Let them do it for you. People are willing to do all the conversion to an online format stuff you probably have to pay someone to do thousands of dollars. Sure the quality is different but no one seems to care! Otherwise, your copyrighted material just rots in your vault not making any money. There are a lot of shows people want to see that are perhaps not worth putting on DVD format.

RE: well
By djc208 on 10/20/2007 7:13:46 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is it's not going to make them money on YouTube or BitTorrent, or any other similar site, and it's all about the money.

Besides it will be worth putting up some day. You let it rest and then in a few years you bring out the re-release of some old show so all the people who used to love it can pay $29.99 a disk to watch it again (and probably realize it wasn't really that good anyway). Then you let it rest and re-release it with never-before seen crap the last disk didn't have so someone will hopefully buy it again.

I do agree that it should be tough to really make this stick. The site might have made it easy to do something illegal but if you think about it so does a hardware store, and we're not shutting those down.

At best they were enabling people to do something illegal. They'll probably have to put a warning on the site about the legality of the sources they link to or something.

RE: well
By Alexstarfire on 10/20/2007 7:31:47 PM , Rating: 3
That may work for many people, but I'm not one of them. If I pay to watch it on TV, WITH COMMERCIALS might I add, then I'm not paying for it again unless I actually wanna watch the "bonus features" on a DVD, which I usually don't. I have tons of TV shows on DVD, but they are ONLY the show, nothing else. If it's legal for me to record them on a DVR/PVR and then burn them I don't see how it's illegal to download, or watch, just the show on the internet and then put it on a DVD.

Perhaps if these bastards weren't so greedy people wouldn't be so God damn mad at them. I shouldn't pay $50 or more for an old season of a TV show on DVD when I pay $50 to watch HUNDREDS of brand new TV series and seasons on TV. That just doesn't make any sense.

RE: well
By dwalton on 10/22/2007 11:03:43 AM , Rating: 2
Noone is after you for viewing or downloading the copyrighted contents off the web, they after the people who provide or help provide the illegal copyrighted content.

RE: well
By afkrotch on 10/21/07, Rating: -1
RE: well
By mars777 on 10/21/2007 7:19:20 AM , Rating: 3
The services the middleman helps you acquire is a hitman. Should the middleman be charged for a crime? It's not like he's doing the killing.

As long as he doesn't charge a fee (which would be without paying taxes) he is free to arrange the meeting of two people.

Allow me to make an analogy:

I have a friend who is a thief.
Should i advertise to all people i meet that my friend is a criminal? No, there is no law on earth that makes me do it...

But 99% of all people who meets me already know i have a criminal friend, and want me to introduce them (this i happening to this site).

But what they (the law) are doing is absurd.

Someone calls me and asks where can he find a stolen car. I say: You can find it on this address "....", he is not a friend of mine, I'm merely informed of this. Police comes shuts down my business and puts me in jail.

RE: well
By tmouse on 10/22/2007 8:53:56 AM , Rating: 3
Actually if you have "a friend" and you know he is about to or has in fact committed a specific crime you CAN be charged as an accomplice before or after the fact if the crime has such a statute. Theft has such statutes in some jurisdictions and murder has such statutes in all jurisdictions in the USA.

RE: well
By Christopher1 on 10/23/2007 2:59:04 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah, and that's one of the STUPIDEST laws ever. You cannot do anything to stop a person from stealing something, and after the fact..... hey, he could have bought the thing (unless it is an extremely rare piece of art or something similar) or picked it up at a rummage sale.

RE: well
By dwalton on 10/22/2007 11:11:36 AM , Rating: 2
Thats not true.

you can't knowingly arrange a meeting between two people for nefarious purposes without opening yourself to persecution, regardless if you charge a fee or not.

Facilitating a crime is just as illegal as committing a crime.

A new Constitutional right: Copyright infringement?
By Kuroyama on 10/20/2007 10:07:08 PM , Rating: 3
What is wrong with all you guys? You seem to think you have some God-given right to engage in copyright infringement (other words for theft in my opinion). If you don't want to pay to watch something that's not free then don't watch it. Watch the free crap on TV, or get Netflix and wait until your favorite show comes out on DVD. Sucks if it's not on DVD or never will be, but the studio owns the show, not you. Personally, I am still eagerly anticipating watching BSG Season 3 when it comes out LEGALLY (why the hell is it taking so long?). We're not talking about groceries or something that you must have.

And this BS comparison to Google is ridiculous too. Last time I checked Google's search algorithm was in no ways designed for the purpose of assisting in crime. Admittedly Youtube's (yes Google) efforts at removing copyrighted material are erratic, but a key difference from TV-links is that in Google's case this is UNINTENTIONAL and a result of misbehaving users, whereas for TV-links the sole purpose of existence is to INTENTIONALLY aid and abet a crime.

By Alexstarfire on 10/20/2007 10:46:31 PM , Rating: 1
Ohh right, just like how I forgot that it's illegal to talk about crime. Ohh wait, it's not, who knew? Not you apparently. Really, neither should get sued/arrested. With Google/YouTube it is unintentional and they shouldn't be held responsible for what users upload, though they should try to prevent them from uploading illegal content. I don't think linking to stuff is illegal anyways.

Gotta say, you sound like a person who works for some TV company, or perhaps the RIAA. If it's on TV, I'm assuming we all pay for TV or get it for free legally, then why can't I legally download a show that I can watch on TV. Many people don't give a crap about all the "extras" that a DVD version has. What is the difference between watching a TV show, not the DVD versions, on computer/DVD and watching it on TV?

By Kuroyama on 10/21/2007 5:43:33 PM , Rating: 2
I have no idea why opposing pirating vehemently means I should have anything to do with the RIAA. Does opposing bank robbery vehemently mean you must work for the bank or police? Actually, I am an academic in a "hard science", not that it should really matter.

Sure, talking about crime is fine, but giving someone specific instructions on how to rob a bank with the knowledge that they fully intend to act on those instructions is aiding and abetting a crime. The difference here is the order of magnitude (physical theft vs. data theft), or as Mark Twain allegedly said "We've already established that you're a whore [when he offered $1million] and now we're just quibbling about the price [when he offered $20]" (a bit of hyperbole but it does make a point).

RE: A new Constitutional right: Copyright infringement?
By kelmon on 10/21/07, Rating: -1
By BitJunkie on 10/21/2007 12:37:26 PM , Rating: 5
"unless you have already paid for it"

See. that's the really interesting part, and worth picking up on. I have satellite TV, that gives me access to all of the major shows - I pay for that as an aside, my primary goal though is to be able to direct my nipper at the kids TV on a Sunday A.M. when I'm trying to grab a lazy extra hour in the sack.

My point is that my subscription to that service gives me the right to watch a broadcast version of content on the providers schedule, I don't get to see even 1/10th of the stuff I'd like to see and probably not even 1/100th of the broadcast content that I could theoretically watch. I don't have Tivo or Sky+ as they charge a horrendous premium for the service, so I miss all that. Do I then have a moral problem with acquiring a show I paid to have access to in one format, but missed?

Hell no. It just tells me that they aren't providing the service that I'd really like to use. I would happily pay for stuff that I watch and not pay for the shite shows that get bundled in my subscriber package that I never set my eyes on. Decent, useable pay-per-view that enables me to watch content on a device of choice is the way forward for me, but as they'll be making less money that way, then I'm sure it'll be a long time coming.

Until they provide me with what I want as a consumer, I'll find some otherway of filling that need. Legal or illegal I don't mind when I've already paid for the right to view that content in one form or another.

By BitJunkie on 10/21/2007 12:41:36 PM , Rating: 2
Voted down within 10 secs of posting, that's got to be a record.

By tmouse on 10/22/2007 9:04:41 AM , Rating: 1
Well you paid for the "right" to be able to see what they are showing on their schedule, the "right" to see it when you want to IS EXTRA. It may suck but that is the system.

By BitJunkie on 10/22/2007 3:05:15 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed, there is normally an opportunity cost for flexibility in service provision. But in fact in the UK certain people can watch some of this content on-demand, the opportunity cost is merely the cost of their net connection and the time taken to download the material. The problem is that the software platforms most of those content providers provide are either not compatible with Vista, Linux or MacOS, or compatible but clunky, buggy and hardwork to use.

The fact that they are prepared to offer this at no further cost and that their software platform is incompatible with my OS makes me feel even less guilty about grabbing stuff in the torrent when I want to.

This still doesn't get round the fact that I'm paying for a lot of stuff on my subscriber package that I don't give a flying feck about. Is there anyway I can be refunded for stuff I don't watch? No, there isn't, so the system is inherrently biased against me as a consumer anyway because I am atypical.

By Oregonian2 on 10/22/2007 3:42:44 PM , Rating: 2
In the U.S. if you want to record TV shows and watch it later when you want to, that is in fact legal. That was the subject of the famous Sony supreme court case (having to do with VCRs when the VCR was being attacked as something that should be illegal). But, I think, you have to do it yourself and your own timeshifting. You can't have somebody else do it for you.

I don't know that site (I watch little TV other than sports games which need to be real-time and maybe the Food channel), but if they were only linking to youtube, they being shut down doesn't make sense. If youtube has illegal stuff, that is the problem, not having links to it. If anything, if they were linking only to illegal stuff then they are doing the RIAA-video-version a favor and service -- locating that which google needs to drop.

By Goldfish92 on 10/22/2007 5:34:45 AM , Rating: 2
Ok, don't fret that TV Links has been shut down...

Here is an almost carbon copy I just stubled across it the other day.. :) enjoy

By Sungpooz on 10/22/2007 9:59:00 AM , Rating: 2
I don't think what this person posted is a crime.

So I don't think finding me a way to watch my heroes is either.

By Christopher1 on 10/23/2007 3:04:25 AM , Rating: 2
You can watch Heroes in an online format on NBC's web page now.

That is the reason why they are doing this, they are ALREADY offering this in a format that anyone can watch (a reduced resolution of course, but I can live with that) so there is no need for these other sites where anyone WITHOUT a cable subscription can download the full uncompressed or barely compressed version.

Usually, I am on the side of torrenters and listing sites, but this is one time when I am not on their side.

By daftrok on 10/23/2007 7:25:43 PM , Rating: 2
Great you jinxed it it's been taken down

Nothing better to do?
By tjr508 on 10/21/2007 7:24:13 PM , Rating: 5
Is it just me, or is this stupid?

Sharing instructions about how to get away with murder,
free speech.

Sharing instructions on how produce dangerous drugs and/or poisons,
free speech.

Sharing instructions on how to make bombs,
free speech.

Sharing instructions on how to watch free TV shows on the Internet,

RE: Nothing better to do?
By Oregonian2 on 10/22/2007 3:32:50 PM , Rating: 2
Simple. The RIAA doesn't care about those other things.

wasn't that great
By mforce on 10/20/2007 6:42:02 PM , Rating: 2
Wasn't that great anyway. A friend told me about it so I could watch Heroes at work but the quality was low , and it didn't load fast enough to be watch-able. I instead just downloaded the whole episode at high res. from bittorrent.
So huray for shutting it down , so much for internet piracy now, nothing to worry about.
IMO if people want to watch shows in low quality online , just let them ... maybe put some adds or something. Otherwise they can always do like I did and download form bittorrent.

RE: wasn't that great
By retrospooty on 10/20/2007 7:32:11 PM , Rating: 3
My wife and I saw some old Yosemite Same cartoons there... worked pretty well LOL.

By Tedtalker1 on 10/21/2007 1:56:26 AM , Rating: 5
For lining up all those links on YouTube and Google Video takes a lot of time and effort.FACT should pay those guys for all the man hours pointing out all the infringing material. :)

Pirates of the... TV Links busted?!
By Spartan Niner on 10/22/2007 4:28:12 AM , Rating: 3
Jack Sparrow would not approve.

By KiDDGuY on 10/23/2007 5:34:31 AM , Rating: 2
a little off topic but the resemblance was uncanny so i had to intervene :P


PS: if u still didn't get it, just look at the picture for that article and then this one's :D

Illegal sites
By DOSGuy on 10/20/2007 6:48:32 PM , Rating: 2
According to FACT, “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.”

Illegal sites like YouTube? I'm sorry, but I don't see why it's anyone's business if I choose to post links to YouTube on my website. If the police don't like what I'm linking to, let them raid YouTube.

RE: Illegal sites
By Polynikes on 10/20/2007 8:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. You might as well arrest all the news outlets' staff who mention web addresses of illegal sites in articles regarding piracy. That's the same thing, essentially.

While we're at it, lets install a bunch of microphones to go with all the cameras so we can hear when people mention these sites verbally. Those evil talking people need to be stopped.

If you're going to arrest anyone...
By daftrok on 10/20/2007 8:03:37 PM , Rating: 2
Arrest the staff of Veoh, arrest the staff of YouTube, arrest the staff of Google. Don't arrest the site with mear links. This is wrong on so many levels and I hope the charges are dropped for TV link.

By Schadenfroh on 10/21/2007 11:15:43 AM , Rating: 2
After I watched google buy youtube, I assumed that they would buy TV-links next.... they (and their investors) seemed to like buying the lawsuit magnet that is youtube. =P


By Gibby82 on 10/20/2007 11:51:08 PM , Rating: 2
How can you be pirating material when the files aren't hosted on your server? Are they going to prosecute using HTML code as evidence? Last time I checked pirating material meant copying/downloading/having possession of media not purchased through normal channels. This is outrageous. So, how much did the MPAA/RIAA pay the UK law enforcement to raid these people? I sure hope it was a lot, because they'll need it to recoup lost legal fees. This s**t is getting out of hand.

RE: What?!?!
By Fritzr on 10/22/2007 3:39:50 AM , Rating: 2
They are not being charged with the act of piracy. They are being charged with aiding and abetting piracy. US domestic law does not consider this a crime. International Copyright does consider this a crime. Yahoo! News recently had an article where some Yanks were arrested and charged according to the International law despite the absence of a crime under US domestic law.

It's not illegal..!!
By LaSan on 10/22/2007 5:47:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm really pissed off...! it' so unfair, he wasn't hosting, just linking, and that's not illegal... Anyway, they can't stop us. there will always be new sites, for instance: It's great, with all the tv series, movies and music... also stage6 and daily motion too.... right on..!

RE: It's not illegal..!!
By LaSan on 10/23/2007 7:42:00 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry... forgot to link it:

By Lonyo on 10/20/2007 6:54:38 PM , Rating: 2
You can be reasonably sure that even the worst lawyer in the world would be able to get him off any charges.
He's doing nothing worse than what, as mentioned, many sites such as Google do.
If he gets arrested and gets charged, then all hell is going to break lose, and no websites at all are going to allow UK users to visit them, for fear of prosecution. If they have a search function, or link to places with illegal content (e.g. youtube) then they will be at risk of the exact same thing happening to them.

By Lord Evermore on 10/21/2007 8:04:36 PM , Rating: 2
An expansion of acronyms should always be given at least once in an article. Even if you link to another site that gives the full name, your own article shouldn't presume people know what it means (and given the full details provided here, I see no point to reading the original article, which I'm sure the Guardian is pleased about).

Steal my TV
By Donzall on 10/22/2007 11:12:08 AM , Rating: 2
I think the problem with all of the referrers (did I put enough r's in that) is that if I put a sign on my front lawn that points to my neighbour's house that says 'He as Complete DVD collections of several science fiction shows, through the hall, second door on the left, top shelf', would that be an illegal activity. Especially if my neighbour gave me the sign? Breaking it down to basics, the government is going after the little fish because the big fish are too big, smart, lobbied up, rich and expensive to fry.

Take out the referrers and all you do is make it a bit harder to find the content on YouTube, Stage6, DivShare and whatnot... the copyright infringement still takes place, money is supposedly (although research shows the contrary) lost by production companies and we all get frustrated when we can't find episode 6.19 of that one show you love that airs on the SciFi channel that you don't get, and you can't afford to buy on DVD... in other words, tax money well wasted.

How do you hold the newspaper liable for placing an advert for a baseballbat that was used to murder someone? Hmm... analogies, I love em :D

By Mitchy on 10/23/2007 11:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
R.I.P. Tv-Links, you were an awesome website :(
By Elton1 on 10/24/2007 8:46:46 AM , Rating: 2
I have made the following site so people can post news and comment on this subject all in one place, and hopefully raise a good deal of support. Please check it out and tell people.
Anyone who has any ideas that would make this site more functional please get in touch.


downloading videos
By james48 on 10/24/2007 2:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, but i thought its legal if you dont host the videos, youtube and other video sharing sites are becoming piracy sites like the only difference is you cant download the videos in youtube which is made easy these days by sites like:

By Kuroyama on 10/24/2007 4:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
Seems that after OiNK the government is hinting that they might consider tougher laws:

By loomis2 on 10/24/2007 4:33:23 PM , Rating: 2
Really, if the police were serious about stopping the illegal distribution of tv shows, they should have just used the site as a tool to find where the infractions were in fact happening. It linked to the actual crimes being committed, basically doing the legwork for the police of finding the content. Guess they can't use it now!
By Elton1 on 10/25/2007 4:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
Please check out this site I have made:

The idea behind the site is to create a publicly accessible resource of accurate information on the tv-links case and create a discussion forum around it. It also exists to offer what ever support is possible to give to the innocent.

Anyone who can contribute or has any ideas that would make this site more functional please get in touch; the aim is too get as much information in one place as possible.


By SharkManEXR on 10/20/2007 10:30:07 PM , Rating: 2
a true artist does not get paid, because he/she would realise that art is an expression of that persons mind which he/she should be willing to share with everyone. everything else that is made to get paid, isn't art, it is entertainment.

just joined here to post this because i feel so strongly about this subject.

By jtesoro on 10/21/2007 2:25:17 AM , Rating: 4
Just because a musician, writer, painter or whatever expects to get paid for his work automatically rules this person out as an artist?

Pity Michaelangelo. Painting the Sistine Chapel but unfortunately can't be called an artist because he was paid for it. Gosh, what of Rembrandt, Picasso and Claude Monet? What a loss! I feel so sad that I should head over to the local Karaoke bar. I'm sure I'll find someone there who'll sing without expecting payment. Finally, a TRUE artist!

By Canizorro on 10/21/2007 10:32:29 AM , Rating: 2
Haha... Brilliant. +1

By zinfamous on 10/21/2007 12:56:15 PM , Rating: 2

artists work off of commision on a regular basis.
As jtesoro said, where would Michaelangelo be without Lorenzo De Medici or pope Julius II?

hell,Jasper Johns makes 90% of his income these days selling off his work for $1 mill+ a pop.

By Fritzr on 10/22/2007 4:01:29 AM , Rating: 3
Add script writers to the list of non-artists. They are currently renogiating their contract agreements. Apparently most of them expect to use residuals from their rare hit to eat while they keep trying to be writer for another hit. Residuals are the payments received by writers, actors, directors and others involved in production for continuing use of the finished material.

SAG (Screen Actors Guild) will also be negotiating a new contract next year that will specify how they get paid for re-use of their work.

So I guess all the actors in film, on Broadway & paying off-Broadway shows aren't artists. Of course there are actors who are artists by the above def...there are a lot of Community Theatre companies around the world using volunteer talent to stage small budget productions.

The Strausses composed pop music and expected to pay the bills with the income from their music. Of course today it is considered to be Classical and musicians expect to be paid for playing the Strauss waltzs. I don't think any of the Classical composers whose work is played to this day composed for personal enjoyment while working a day job to pay for meals & housing. Most sought patrons who paid them to compose, the rest sold the performances and expected their art to pay their bills.

Most musicians that stage concerts and other public performances consider their work to be an art form...they also expect to be paid, unless they are working a fundraiser in which case their accountant will make sure there is an "in kind" receipt for the tax return.

For the folks most people consider to be artists ... well check the art galleries, museums and book stores and see how much free art is available :P

By tmouse on 10/22/2007 9:12:57 AM , Rating: 2
Oh please ALL of the great artists were paid and their works went to the "Patrons". Even da Vinchi had to eat.

By mindless1 on 10/21/2007 1:52:50 AM , Rating: 2
What a crazy comment. Show us these artists who didn't get paid for their part in TV shows because of piracy, or aiding by linking works as this 'site did.

I'm not making a right/wrong judgement about what they did, only about the nonsensical idea you have.

Further, if one can't make a living in a profession, can't then eat, pay rent, etc, it seems like it's about time they found a profession they can make a living at instead.

Artists are not on the welfare system. They can't demand pay for what the public isn't willing to pay for.

By Ringold on 10/21/2007 6:07:38 AM , Rating: 2
Artists are not on the welfare system. They can't demand pay for what the public isn't willing to pay for.

Sure as hell could've fooled me. On the local level, at least in many parts of America, the government subsidizes some types of artists pretty heavily. Naples made the news for their artist tax on property, and Orlando several years back paid hundreds of thousands for a series of stupid lizard statues to be erected all over the place. Thankfully we were smart enough to replace mayor Linda Hood, but there's still at least one lizard that stares at people at MCO.. Almost all the rest, predictably, have been vandalized or stolen.

By alienbibin on 10/21/2007 6:15:09 AM , Rating: 2
Completely agree with you.....if someone has a skill for any art or entertainment stuff he obviously gets paid for....and if he cannot, better find something else...!!!!

By Christopher1 on 10/23/2007 3:08:16 AM , Rating: 2
I agree with this statement totally. The reason that people don't want to buy Britney Spears latest album or the latest movie or game is usually because they SUCK ASS!

I'm sorry that I have to put it that way, but that is just the blunt truth of the matter.

By Aiserou on 10/22/2007 2:24:14 PM , Rating: 3
What a crazy comment. Show us these artists who didn't get paid for their part in TV shows because of piracy, or aiding by linking works as this 'site did.

Just because they have money, doesn't give anyone the right to take the "extra" money out of their pockets.

Artists are not on the welfare system. They can't demand pay for what the public isn't willing to pay for.

And the public can't demand for free what the Artist is charging for. By your logic, I can walk into a Best Buy, take a TV off the shelf, claim that the manufacturer makes enough money, refuse to pay, and then walk out the door with it while claiming that they have no right to charge for something I'm not willing to pay for.

By mindless1 on 10/24/2007 3:56:29 PM , Rating: 2
There is no "extra money". They've already been paid in full and to be paid more they'll have to get another gig.

The public didn't "demand" anything. We did not demand the artist be an artist or do any work at all in any remotely art-related field. Not at all! They did the work thinking they were worth more than they were, then crying "gimme gimme".

Don't waste time playing the "by my logic" game, if that was what was meant I'd write it instead of waiting for you to do so. By my logic, that there is a TV at bestbuy is not in any way making it manditory that you buy a TV from bestbuy.

Bestbuy cannot demand "we lost money" because you didn't buy one. They still have the TV and anyone who deems it worth the price is welcome to drive on down and pick it up.

By Ringold on 10/21/2007 6:14:31 AM , Rating: 2
Yep. SciFi channel should just spend millions on special effects, props etc and pay the actors, engineers and artists with big smiles because, woot, 1m leeches on the torrent in the first hour!

Not a surprise from a "Neocommunist", but if an artist released a Platinum Re-Release Mark III, and people of their own accord bought it enough to make it worth it, then it's not a "leech of society"; someone clearly derives extra utility from the purchase, and the artist is compensated for it.

A little Friedman is in order for you:
"What most people really object to when they object to a free market is that it is so hard for them to shape it to their own will. The market gives people what the people want instead of what other people think they ought to want. At the bottom of many criticisms of the market economy is really lack of belief in freedom itself."

If grandma wants George Jones Greatest Hits XXII, then so be it. That's none of our business, nor our place to pass judgement.

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki