4 ms·

How was the money made? Ads? Google has ads and finding a video of any show on there is pretty easy. They are also profiting from infringement. In the end I ju

by nkassis 15y ago

How was the money made? Ads? Google has ads and finding a video of any show on there is pretty easy. They are also profiting from infringement. In the end I just don't get why linking is why if what he did is not it's not illegal where he is he could still be extradited even if he never had servers in the US and never promoted directly to Americans (I'm assuming he didn't go out and ask Americans to his site). Thing is, if his site was in French I would be there would be no case for extradition.

TylerE 15y ago
Yes, ads. It's a difference of attitude. I found a snapshot of their site, here are a few bits from their FAQ: " Also, please keep in mind that you're watching videos for free as opposed to spending over 20 dollars at the movie theater or purchasing a show. This should help you put things in perspective (keep in mind that prices change but this is a normal, typical price). " ... snipped price list ... "So, as you see, you're saving quite a lot of money (especially when putting several visits to the theater or seasons together) by having to wait a little bit of time. " Their main listing page is broken up into genres, which shows they were aware of the nature of their content, and includes heading that indicate the source of the content: "Movies" "TV" "Anime", etc. They don't even make an effort to hide what they are doing. Their submission page mentions "Copying the name of the show exactly as it is on imdb". As for the issue of linking, it's a red herring here. This was not some neutral site linking to random, user submitted comment. This was a curated collection. They knew _exactly_ what they were doing.
- nkassis 15y ago
  "As for the issue of linking, it's a red herring here. This was not some neutral site linking to random, user submitted comment. This was a curated collection. They knew _exactly_ what they were doing." I get that this probably falls into the guilty mind(Mens rea) concept but I still don't find it correct that the act of linking to copyrighted material or not(well to be accurate, it's all copyrighted anyway) can be illegal based on context and the attitude of the person who created that <a>
  - TylerE 15y ago
    What if you put it in more physical terms. If someone went around passing out a list of people in your community who leave their back door unlocked, would you have a problem with that? After all, they're only "linking" to potential robbery victims, not actually robbing them. Edit: From their About page: "TV Shack™ was launched December 2007 by a handful of Swedish university students as a place to watch movies & television online by way of linking to video hosting sites across the web. ... 2009 is set to be a massive sea of change in online video viewing. TV Shack™ has set itself a target of being in the top 1,000 visited websites globally by the end of the year 2009, this will leave it perfectly placed to become an essential stop for the ever growing online video user base." Under the English interpretation of mens rea, this would seem to fall under the strictest level: "Direct intention: the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur. It's his aim or purpose to achieve this consequence"
    - dsthysd 15y ago
      I would not have a problem with that (or don't think it should be illegal at least). Get rid of the source, not the messenger. In my opinion something such as that should fall under free speech.
      - TylerE 15y ago
        Lots of things that are free speech are not legal. The very concept of Free Speech only refers to government infringement of your rights.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
tvon 15y ago
My understanding is that the crime he's allegedly committing is against US based businesses that own the copyrights he is infringing upon, thus he can be extradited (assuming the home country cooperates, but given the treaties in place it's hard to imagine they wouldn't except in very extreme cases).

by nkassis 15y ago

TylerE 15y ago

Yes, ads. It's a difference of attitude. I found a snapshot of their site, here are a few bits from their FAQ: " Also, please keep in mind that you're watching videos for free as opposed to spending over 20 dollars at the movie theater or purchasing a show. This should help you put things in perspective (keep in mind that prices change but this is a normal, typical price). " ... snipped price list ... "So, as you see, you're saving quite a lot of money (especially when putting several visits to the theater or seasons together) by having to wait a little bit of time. " Their main listing page is broken up into genres, which shows they were aware of the nature of their content, and includes heading that indicate the source of the content: "Movies" "TV" "Anime", etc. They don't even make an effort to hide what they are doing. Their submission page mentions "Copying the name of the show exactly as it is on imdb". As for the issue of linking, it's a red herring here. This was not some neutral site linking to random, user submitted comment. This was a curated collection. They knew _exactly_ what they were doing.

nkassis 15y ago
"As for the issue of linking, it's a red herring here. This was not some neutral site linking to random, user submitted comment. This was a curated collection. They knew _exactly_ what they were doing." I get that this probably falls into the guilty mind(Mens rea) concept but I still don't find it correct that the act of linking to copyrighted material or not(well to be accurate, it's all copyrighted anyway) can be illegal based on context and the attitude of the person who created that <a>
- TylerE 15y ago
  What if you put it in more physical terms. If someone went around passing out a list of people in your community who leave their back door unlocked, would you have a problem with that? After all, they're only "linking" to potential robbery victims, not actually robbing them. Edit: From their About page: "TV Shack™ was launched December 2007 by a handful of Swedish university students as a place to watch movies & television online by way of linking to video hosting sites across the web. ... 2009 is set to be a massive sea of change in online video viewing. TV Shack™ has set itself a target of being in the top 1,000 visited websites globally by the end of the year 2009, this will leave it perfectly placed to become an essential stop for the ever growing online video user base." Under the English interpretation of mens rea, this would seem to fall under the strictest level: "Direct intention: the actor has a clear foresight of the consequences of his actions, and desires those consequences to occur. It's his aim or purpose to achieve this consequence"
  - dsthysd 15y ago
    I would not have a problem with that (or don't think it should be illegal at least). Get rid of the source, not the messenger. In my opinion something such as that should fall under free speech.
    - TylerE 15y ago
      Lots of things that are free speech are not legal. The very concept of Free Speech only refers to government infringement of your rights.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]

tvon 15y ago

My understanding is that the crime he's allegedly committing is against US based businesses that own the copyrights he is infringing upon, thus he can be extradited (assuming the home country cooperates, but given the treaties in place it's hard to imagine they wouldn't except in very extreme cases).