Talk:TV Links

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)

That's a clone site, theres a few of them. I'm sure if tv-links.co.uk did relaunch that there'd be a forum with some recognizable members. They were very community driven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.103.83 (talk) 21:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

• Yeah. Firstly, sign your comments. Secondly, this is not a general discussion forum. Thirdly, we will not add information about these "clones" unless there is a reliable source. ViperSnake151 23:02, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

Also, NAMBLA has the perfect right to SAY whatever they say, they don't have the right to DO whatever. People like pat robertson and john hagee say the most racist and ant-Catholic things everyday. They just can't incite hatred or violent crime. And again, comparing tv-links and people who don't wanna wait for reruns, to Nambla ... are you 12?--CrashTestSmartie (talk) 21:27, 13 August 2008 (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]])

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

The distribution of copyrighted works has existed since the time when the idea of copyrights was conceived.86.45.104.136 (talk) 22:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

*bump* It seems to me that this site as well as all the other copy cats could be listed as copy cats or legacy sites or whatever while also pointing out any involvement with the original tvlinks staff and how it's different from the original. I think this would clarify the existing confusion and also satiate everyone else's desire to see the other tvlinks sites documented with their relationship (or lack of) to the original site. 64.134.187.6 (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

• See #Mention of mirrors in the article. ViperSnake151 11:49, 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)

Request for comment on mentioning of .cc

Okay, anyway, we got email confirmation that the .cc site everyone keeps adding back IS the real site.

BUT, this runs afoul of WP:RS and possibly WP:NOR because this is being mentioned by a primary source who is the subject, which is the complete opposite of "reliable secondary source independent from the subject". Someone on IRC suggested that we get this logged on OTRS - cause would our OTRS be a "reliable secondary source independent of the subject"? I wanna ignore this, but this is one of Wikipedia's core guidelines. ViperSnake151 19:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

You don't need IAR, and OTRS is irrelevant here. The anonymous webmaster of .cc says it's the real thing...who cares? The very spirit of WP:RS is that we don't automatically trust what we see/hear/read, especially on the internet. If the previous owner claims responsibility, or a reliable source reports this, then we can say it. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:TV Links/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• "Links, all content" → "Links; all content"
• "crime (see references). As" → "crime. As" – don't reference to specific sections like this
• "Historical context and significance" – paragraph needs a reference
• There is no need for the " General" section if that's the only section in its parent section
• "in the Guardian Unlimited, TV Links shut down for linking:[10]" → "in the Guardian Unlimited, "TV Links shut down for linking":[10]" – add the quotes and remove the bold
• Format the references using {{cite web}}

Gary King (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Seven days have passed and there has been no effort to work on these issues, so this article has failed its Good Article nomination. Feel free to renominate it in the future. Gary King (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

tv-links.ws has been launched by the original staff and designers of the old site, proof of this can be found via the forum. The staff members are the original crew. 86.45.107.188 (talk) 12:29, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

If a bunch of people decided to make their usernames the same as the old staff's names, would we tell the difference? Given the multiple of sites that claim to be the real TV Links, the best practice is to wait until a reliable source backs up the claim. Relying on our own judgement that the site is run by the same people is original research. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Well perhaps contacting them or the previous owner of the site would be an idea. I was part of the staff on the old site but Im not on the new site. I know for a fact that it's the same guys but understand that that's not considered as a viable source.86.40.176.56 (talk) 11:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Cuurent owner

I've removed the line specifying the website's current content, a text message that states "something here soon", as there is no proof the domain belongs to the same owner. In fact, the website's domain was for sale for a while before the current owner bought it (See thunmbnail images on whois.domaintools.com/tv-links.co.uk). --Nezek (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Why? The article is titled tv-links. It's not about it's owner. The domain is still active, it's speculation to assume it was sold at all.86.40.176.56 (talk) 12:33, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted it. You have provided no reliable source. That is original research. ViperSnake151 13:54, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Viper, you also reverted other modifications I've made in the same edit, watch what you're doing next time. --Nezek (talk) 08:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Even if there were a reliable source, then mentioning a sale would be relevant. The article is about the website that was hosted at TV-links.co.uk - the current state of that site is quite relevant to the article. It is its own source. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

What some random person wrote, on the domain that used to be TV-Links, is NOT relevant information. The WHOIS information I provided above is a reliable source, to the right of the page there is a thumbnail image that shows the domain was on sale on 2007-12-28. The website doesn't exist anymore, and the article should not cite it until proven otherwise. whether or not the article should specify that the domain traded hands needs to be in it's own seperate discussion. --Nezek (talk) 08:23, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

????? --79.178.115.159 (talk) 17:53, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

It's Back

http://www.tv-links.ws/ This is the new Tv-Links, started up by the old staff, it has a forum, with alot of the old staff on, and is clear that it is back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.179.135 (talk) 19:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's by far not the first site to claim to be the real TV-links, and this specific one has been brought up before. But for the first reason, we need a reliable source to support or at least reiterate this claim, and not simply the words of some forum posters. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What proof do you need ??? It can all be seen on the site, also notice it's the only one with a forum. An active forum, it is the real tv-links, trust me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.183.49 (talk) 20:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll ante a unreliable source and raise you a no original research. ViperSnake151 21:05, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

ViperSnake, what would exactly qualify as a "Reliable Source" in this case? The sites owner "David Rock" is not involved with the new domain, Tv-Links.co.uk's staff were a bigger part of the site than it's owner, managing the everyday running of the site and forum. The article is about the site, not it's owner. It seems plausible to me that there should be some mention that the staff have launched a new site tv-links.ws, as it is applicable to the article itself, through it's staff being the ones that ran the old site. There is sufficient evidence that the .ws domain is owned by the old site's staff. When .co.uk was shut down, the staff set up a temp forum [3], to keep in touch and plan what to do next, by reading through that forum and looking at dates it's easy to see that they are for real. Also, theres various mention of the new domain on it.

Would "consensus" not be good enough source on an issue like this? 86.45.98.160 (talk) 14:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Those links aren't appropriate because we would have read through those dates to confirm they are real. Additionally, we are going on the word of people speaking through multiple web-forums. You have to keep in mind that content on Wikipedia is meant to be verifiable. So even if this is "true," you could consider the question: "If this were a hoax, would we be able to distinguish it from reality?" Then keep in mind that more than one site has claimed to be the real TV-Links. This is why we require the link between the sites be made by a reliable source. And the reason our own research is prohibited is that users are supposed to be able to follow our references for easy verification of what's on this site; if we have to explain how we figured it out, then we've done something wrong. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:41, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this a reliable enough source? It's already used as citation for other parts of the article [4] 86.45.84.147 (talk) 11:54, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Blog of a random person - not a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Well then why is it cited in other parts of the article, along with other blogs? 86.45.84.147 (talk) 18:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Because no one noticed until you pointed it out. Also, the "other blog" is that of a professional journalist blogging in The Guardian - certainly not a random person. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:43, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok well I'm not going to try and get into an argument over something as trivial as what the criteria is for differentiating a "random person" and a respected blogger (journalist) is, but I would draw your attention to this [5], another interview by the same guy. Who decides whether an interviewer or their media outlet is worthy of inclusion in an article? Does it mean that only big business press organizations are capable of producing fair and truthful content? 86.45.84.147 (talk) 20:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

For some sources, there is simply a standing consensus that they are reliable. This consensus would include most non-tabloid "big business press organizations," such as the BBC, New York Times, etc. But the basis of a reliable source is that it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This is generally established by demonstrating that the source is held in high regard (by means of being favorably reviewed or cited) by sources whose reliability is not in dispute. The reason for having this requirement is that anyone can start up their own website and claim to be a news outlet. As for the "random person" or not, given that literally anyone can create a blog, a blog is only reliable in one of two circumstances: 1) It has been favorably reviewed or cited by other reliable sources, as mentioned, or 2) The author of the blog is an expert in his field. The guardian blog was written by a professional journalist who writes for a respected news organization. The blog you cite, however, is maintained by just...someguy...Someguy1221 (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The site is mentioned here too, by the original sites creator. Is this a reliable source? - http://torrentfreak.com/busted-tv-show-site-in-limbo-as-authorities-back-off-081121/comment-page-1/ 86.45.96.125 (talk) 11:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Its back...twice?

For awhile now I have been using tv-links.cc which is ALOT like the original TV-Links. So I dont know whats up with this site, if its made by the original owner or what. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeeded (talk • contribs) 07:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

No it's a clone site made by someone that wanted to cash in on the tv-links name. The original sites owner is no longer involved in any site. The former staff of tv-links.co.uk are now working on tv-links.ws86.45.66.118 (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Proof Tv-Links.ws is legit and the real Tv-Links

http://torrentfreak.com/busted-tv-show-site-in-limbo-as-authorities-back-off-081121/comment-page-1/ An interview with "Sin" or David Rock, the original owner and creator of Tv-Links states: "Dave told us. He has no intention of bringing the site back, particularly since a TV-Links.co.uk replacement site popped up many months ago at TV-Links.ws." This is the real site, "Sin" will never do anything with the original domain, he's out of this and has left it behind him. He doesn't even own the domain anymore. Hopefully this will be enough to confirm this is the new, Tv-Links, with all the original staff from the first. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.165.81 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

All he says is that "a replacement site popped up." Not "this is the new, the real, the legitimate TV Links." Regardless, what is such a thing? If Wikipedia shuts down and all the admins run off and start up their own without Jimbo Wales, will it still be Wikipedia? If you answered yes, then what if the people behind TV Links ran off and started Tv-links.ws while Tv-links.co.uk was still up and running? Kind of a philosophical stitch. The ultimate answer according to multiple policies and guidelines is that there is no question, since what is verifiable is more important than what is true. And on that note, the link is to a blog maintained by an anonymous individual, and not a reliable source. Someguy1221 (talk) 21:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The link above is not a blog, but a interview with the ex-owner. And Tv-Links.ws was made way after Tv-Links.co.uk. It took a very long time to actually get it up and running. Trusting people we shouldn't....twice was a major problem. And yes if the old wikipedia staff made a new wikipedia without Jimbo Wales but had the original logo, original design, just not the domain, then yes of course it would. And about the "a replacement site popped up", wouldn't it have made sense to name one of the more well known Tv-links site, wouldn't Torrent Freak have named Tv-Link.cc or something. They had no knowledge of Tv-Links.ws until "Sin" told them about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.163.96 (talk) 16:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The link is an interview posted on a blog by an anonymous individual. Anyway, the analogy was made in hopes of getting you to think critically about the question, and realize that designating the "real" TV-links is subjective, as the only clearcut one stopped existing over a year ago. On Wikipedia, there is only one way to decide such an issue, and that is to rely only on what is verifiable by reliable sources. And honestly, it's highly unlikely those will ever appear, as the original got them only by having its owner arrested. And on a side note, TV-links.ws was maybe the 6th site that showed up on this page, with people claiming in one way or another that it was TV-links. Someguy1221 (talk) 17:18, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed re-write

This article is in need of broad changes. Please write your comments, suggestions, or objections under the relevant subsection, not at the end. --Nezek (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Lead improvements

The reasoning is in the notes. Fancy, I know (:

--Nezek (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The only thing I disagree with is calling it a "Dutch" website. I think labeling it with a country is confusing, and all the relevant information follows anyway. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:30, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Er... please comment in the relevant section so whatever discussion about it would have some order. these are seperate suggestions. moved. --Nezek (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

The Pirate Bay is labeled with a country. And I don't think many people know where Cheltenham or Gloucestershire are. Also, the domain name suggests the website originates in Europe. On the same princple, articles about people first mention the person's origin.

Yes, but the Pirate Bay is swedish no matter which way you cut it; the same is true of most people. Calling it a Dutch website seems to me like hypothetically calling Don LaFontaine a Mexican actor if his recording studio happened to be there. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're suggesting it isn't dutch? David Rock was the creator and maintainer of the website, he lives in the Nederlands, he considered the laws of his country when running the website. therefore, its origins are dutch --Nezek (talk) 02:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, Rock is from England. Should this state its English website, than? --Nezek (talk) 04:15, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be less confusing, or just put nothing there. I said it was confusing because, honestly, what qualifies a website as "dutch" or "english"? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:36, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Legality section

The section lacks notability on its own, and should be merged with the shut down section. The section says "The legality of this site could be compared to BitTorrent indexing sites like The Pirate Bay or the original Napster program". However, it doesn't cite any sources that made such connections. I can see why it's helpful to reference websites like The Pirate Bay in the lead, it helps note that the legal debate about this subject goes well beyond TV Links, but it doesn't need its own section. --Nezek (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I did find an independent review of UK law cited by a TechCrunch article on this saying that "facilitation" of infringement is a crime under UK law. ViperSnake151 01:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That's not what they were charged with though... so it isn't relavant. --bitbit (pka Nezek) ^(talk) 22:01, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Shutdown section

The sources that discuss how TV Links was "just linking" to content are completely inaccurate, and most of them wrote about it after the website was down. TV Links had pages containing a video player that displayed videos directly, it was much more than your ordinary hyperlink. I think that is what the quote from Roger Marles is about "[...] films and television programmes directly via the website. This is illegal under UK copyright law". I've located and cached a page that contained the player. To see similar examples you can try the 3rd Rock From the Sun listing of TV Links. We might also want to link to Copyright aspects of hyperlinking and framing. --Nezek (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

What in the world caused this website to get shut down? Yes, the owner was arrested, but the hosting was not even in the same country! I can't find any sources about what was on the warrant (if any) that was given ot the hosting company. As the article stands now, it's main subject is not verifiable. --Nezek (talk) 05:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Either way we know it wasn't for "facilitating copyright infringement", the article itself cites sources and says the arrest was over a matter of possible trademark infringement. We need to clearify what this was about. --bitbit (pka Nezek) ^(talk) 22:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how reliable this source is, seeing as how it got pretty much all the facts wrong in the article, but it claims that some forum admins were also arrested: [6]. The information has been sent directly to them by email and published on the website. --Nezek (talk) 14:46, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, this guy is not relieble as far as fact checking goes --Nezek (talk) 10:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Impact

Has no sources, it influanced Hulu's creation? I'm doubtful. I propose to delete this, and get around to writing about the many knock-off websites that sprung up due to the shut down, and where the website's community moved to. We have plenty of examples of these websites here in the talk page. --Nezek (talk) 00:22, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

save-tv-links.co.uk

Just a side note, save-tv-links.co.uk redirects here (: --Nezek (talk) 13:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Tv-Links Staff

Are all here http://forum.tv-links.ws/index.php?act=idx It's also no longer a linking site but a TV discussion site and is as dead as MJ. Most still lurk it but there's no real life in it. This was mainly just for the old staff at Tv-Links who might look here and would like to say hey to the old team. Feel free too. It's such a shame it all crashed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.177.36 (talk) 18:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Not notable

I don't think TV Links is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Fladoodle (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2013 (UTC)