Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Television Your Rights Online

UKNova TV Torrent Tracker Shut Down After FACT Issues C&D 195

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the anti-culture-conspiracy dept.
New submitter Volfied writes with bad news for fans of UK shows that aren't available for purchase anywhere. From the article: "The UKNova website has stopped letting users share links to copies of UK TV shows, apparently after legal threats from the copyright "enforcement body FACT. 'UKNova is being forced to change. We have been issued with a "cease and desist" order by FACT,' the message began. 'Despite our efforts to cooperate with the UK media companies, FACT have stated: "ALL links or access to content provided by UKNova are infringing, unless it can be proven that explicit permission from the copyright holder for that content has been obtained."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UKNova TV Torrent Tracker Shut Down After FACT Issues C&D

Comments Filter:
  • ...of letting someone know that they are guilty until proven innocent.
  • by Un pobre guey (593801) on Monday August 27, 2012 @08:19PM (#41144073) Homepage

    bad news for fans of UK shows that aren't available for purchase anywhere

    So evidently many of you folks believe this is reason enough to pirate the content. If a patent isn't available for licensing by its owner, and thus not "available for purchase anywhere," is that also reason enough to pirate the patent? What about violating GPL, since it isn't "available for purchase anywhere," either? I'm talking about the enforcement of prevailing law, not anyone's philosophical issues with intellectual property.

    • by Nerdfest (867930)

      What's the purpose of copyright again?

    • by currently_awake (1248758) on Monday August 27, 2012 @08:24PM (#41144119)
      There are two basic problems with copyrights. 1- eternal duration (they last until the material is worthless), 2-they are under no obligation to offer it for sale.
      • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2012 @08:30PM (#41144163)

        Actually, they last beyond the time the material is worthless. Some companies who are not offering their intellectual property for sales, and have no intention of doing so, will still take legal action to prevent others acquiring it.

        • by OFnow (1098151) on Monday August 27, 2012 @09:43PM (#41144665)

          AC writes: "Actually, they last beyond the time the material is worthless".

          Actually even if the author wants a work released there is no practical way to release it that is accepted in US law. Plenty of authors have no illusions and plenty of works have very short useful lives. But existing law provides no way to deal with that.

          The book "How To Fix Copyright" by William Patry has details on this and much more. I have no financial or other interest, I just like the book.

        • It is worth noting that law only prescribes the *maximum* term of copyright protection that applies.

          There is no reason why the creator of intellectual property can't define a shorter term if they choose.

          The book I'll be releasing shortly will have a clearly stated copyright term of just five years.

          I'm hoping that by being *sensible* about the term of protection, those who might otherwise have opted to simply download a copy (it won't be DRMed) without paying the paltry sum being asked, will think again abou

          • by Kalriath (849904)

            I'm hoping that by being *sensible* about the term of protection, those who might otherwise have opted to simply download a copy (it won't be DRMed) without paying the paltry sum being asked, will think again about doing so.

            We're not talking a literary work on the scale of Dickens -- but I do expect that it is something which the public domain will benefit from in a few years time (whether it sells in quantity or not) so I'm not going to be stupid about my use of copyright protection.

            Sadly, I believe you will be disappointed.

        • by Xest (935314)

          I can cite an anecdote over this too.

          I have a friend who is a botanist and who was researching the history of a specific taxonomic classification to find the reasons for the classicification as he was trying to determine with modern knowledge, whether the classification was still valid.

          I can't remember the exact details, but the book in which the classification was defined was published in something like 1916, but for some reason was allowed to be re-published (as an updated version perhaps) in about 1937.

      • by pantaril (1624521)

        There are two basic problems with copyrights. 1- eternal duration (they last until the material is worthless), 2-they are under no obligation to offer it for sale.

        The main problem of copyright is, that it creates artificial scarity where none is needed. Without copyright, the whole knowledge of humankind could be available to anyone on the planet instantly. With copyright, only the knowledge you can personaly financialy afford and the creator is willing to sell you is available. This is imo totaly wrong and there is absolutely no reason for such cripling restriction to exist.

        Money is not the problem. We already pay for intelectual property. We just don't want to shar

      • by dywolf (2673597)

        That's why I support copyright (and patents), but only in a reasonable (ie, not eternal) form. Depending on material (or format I should say), 5-25 years is more than sufficient. If you can't make money off your creation in that time frame, too fing bad, it's time to let someone else try by creating a derivitive work.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2012 @08:32PM (#41144181)

      Black markets are created by unsatisfied demand, where legitimate supply does not increase to meet demand or is artificially constrained.

      The copyright cartels do not want to meet this demand (it is completely realistic for them to do so) at a price people will pay, however they are often quoted as "not wanting to 'devalue' their content". Bascically they have done the maths and realised they can maximise their profit by creating artificial scarcity and keeping the unit price high while selling less and/or tying content up into lucritive exclusive distribution contracts.
      Even worse is that they often do not want people to access older content as it's value is percieved as lower and because there are only so many hours of media that a person can consume they would prefer that you payed for the more expensive new content.

      • by Lumpy (12016) on Monday August 27, 2012 @09:06PM (#41144423) Homepage

        For the same reason that drug dealers dont want legalized drugs. Most drug cartels are against Medical marijuana because it dilutes the price if it becomes legal and wide spread.

        The RIAA and MPAA are no different than Drug Cartels. Instead of cutting off heads, they ruin entire families for generations with billion dollar law suits that are presided over by corrupt judges.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2012 @08:33PM (#41144189)

      The whole point of copyright is to ensure the works are created for the public good and made available to the public. If the works are not being made readily available at a reasonable price poin then the copyright should expire and the ditributors (torrent site) is legal. Anything short of this is unethical.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by jamstar7 (694492)

        The whole point of copyright is to ensure the works are created for the good of the media companies and made available to the public over their dead bodies. If the works are not being made readily available at a reasonable price point then the media companies are doing the job they made for themselves. Copyright should never expire and the distributors (torrent site) is illegal. Anything short of this is unethical since it violates the media company's government-mandated profits, imaginary or not.

        FTFY. Seriously, dude, anything other than eternal copyright is un-American, and we will shove this down your throats and up your ass until the only words you can ever say OR think again is "America!! FUCK YEAH!!"

      • by chrismcb (983081)
        Actually, at least in America, the whole point of copyright is to help the creators create content. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts..." It doesn't say anything about making it available to the public. Or are you suggesting that if a performer wants to do a stage show, once, he MUST record it and distribute the recording?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27, 2012 @08:35PM (#41144203)

      Yes. The purpose of patents are "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." If you don't build it, and you don't license it, then yes, the patent should be invalidated. That phrase you might recognize from somewhere. Any use of patents other than to promote the progress of science and the useful arts is unconstitutional in the U.S.

      US Constitution, Section 8. "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"

    • Laws that are unenforceable are moot. Copyright laws are unenforceable in the current world. So lets stop wasting our efforts trying to preserve outdated business models that can't be possibly preserved.
      • by CanEHdian (1098955) on Monday August 27, 2012 @09:33PM (#41144611)

        Laws that are unenforceable are moot. Copyright laws are unenforceable in the current world. So lets stop wasting our efforts trying to preserve outdated business models that can't be possibly preserved.

        It's not just that they are unenforceable. They have lost popular support, the only reason that they are still there is that these laws still do no really affect the older folk. Plus at election time there are somehow always "more important issues" that need to be talked about.

        In the mean time, behind closed door, Hollywood is pushing it's agenda in TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement) and CETA. Would anyone believe that Hollywood is trying to extend Canada's copyright term by another 2 decades? Today that's longer than most kids take to grow from a baby into someone that's out the door and in college. And that's just the term *extension*!

      • by jamstar7 (694492)
        Laws that are unenforceable make more criminals when they're selectively enforced. See 'The War On Drugs' for further information.
    • by alexgieg (948359) <alexgieg@gmail.com> on Monday August 27, 2012 @09:04PM (#41144409) Homepage

      So evidently many of you folks believe this is reason enough to pirate the content. If a patent isn't available for licensing by its owner, and thus not "available for purchase anywhere," is that also reason enough to pirate the patent? What about violating GPL, since it isn't "available for purchase anywhere," either? I'm talking about the enforcement of prevailing law, not anyone's philosophical issues with intellectual property.

      Yes, it is reason enough. I give an example of the silliness copyright causes. Here in Brazil there was a relatively famous writer a few years ago who died. His widow, heir to his copyrights, happened to become member of a religion for which his works were considered offensive. Being the rightful copyright owner, she thus decided to block any new edition of his works. The situation persists, and might continue for about 50 years, unless a Disney happens again and it goes on for longer still.

      Copyright without copyduty is morally abhorrent. If a rights holder doesn't provide the copies only he can presumably make, why, yes, by all means, we, the people, will do it for him! Because the moment he fails on his duty, it becomes ours.

      • by chrismcb (983081)
        So if I paint a painting, and sell ONE copy... It is your duty to copy the painting and sell it?
        If I decide to make a limited edition set, it is your duty to make the set unlimited?
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward

          If that painting is historically, socially and/or culturally significant, yes.

          Humanity should not artificially inhibit itself just to satisfy the greed of a few.

        • if they take a digital picture of it there should be no moral issue, you see you are making a error of confessing physical objects and digitally replicateable media.

          • Having seen first hand quite a few master pieces in many museums in Europe, I can assure you that a digital replica is in no way a replacement for the original. They are a pale shadow by comparison.

            PS I assume you mean confusing, not confessing.

    • So evidently many of you folks believe this is reason enough to pirate the content.

      Indeed.

      If a patent isn't available for licensing by its owner, and thus not "available for purchase anywhere," is that also reason enough to pirate the patent?

      Yes, exactly. Why the hell should the advancement of science or sharing of culture be subject to restriction of any kind?

      What about violating GPL, since it isn't "available for purchase anywhere," either? I'm talking about the enforcement of prevailing law, not anyone's philosophical issues with intellectual property.

      Translation: Let me coach my question in such a way that no sane answers apply. You began with asking a questions of reason, yet no reason is allowed in the answering? Sir: Fuck you as immensely as can be conceived.

      The English Monarchy could do as it damn well pleased under prevailing law until the Magna Carta came to be. Slavery used to be a prevailing law in the United States, and Segregation was on the law books after that. Women used to not be allowed to vote as well.

      The point is, Fuck the unjust Prevailing Law. Laws CAN BE WRONG. Disobeying a law via action that can not lead to physical harm is equivalent to sitting at the front of a bus regardless of the colour of your skin. Obeying unjust laws for the sake of obeying the law is folly. Sometimes we must participate in civil disobedience in order to improve the law, other times we must take more drastic measures. I can think of no more a peaceful demonstration than to ignore a law preventing the sharing of information.

      It is typically not the end user that can even violate the GPL, only a publisher or distributor of information; That said, I'm all for allowing companies to ignore copyright and "violate the GPL" as long as the common man is free to ignore copyright laws as well.

      This is the Age of Information. Laws promoting and enforcing Artificial Scarcity of Information are Ridiculous, Tyrannical, and should be completely ignored since they infringe upon everyone's right to communicate freely any information they wish. Copyright and Patent law are hindrances to true innovation that do not benefit the society as a whole. Removing or ignoring these laws does not reduce the demand for new and better information and technology, nor would abolishing these prevent one from producing technology or media. What's scarce is the ability to research, not the discovery. What's scarce is the ability to create new content, not copies of said content. Artificial Scarcity of information is abhorrent, both ethically and economically.

      The only logical thing to do is to abolish patent and copyright laws. Only then can we test the hypothesis by which the laws were made. Things have changed so drastically since the laws were conceived that such an experiment must be done. Until then, we're operating under unproven conjecture and NO logical argument can be made for them!

      Prove to me such laws are beneficial. So long as you're unwilling or unable to do so, the law should be ignored.

      • Well said! And I do believe IP laws will be ignored more and more until copyright is finally broken. Regardless of any amount of money you put at it there is no way to force millions of people to obey unjust laws unless you have a gun pointed to each of their heads.
      • Disobeying a law via action that can not lead to physical harm is equivalent to sitting at the front of a bus regardless of the colour of your skin.

        If I torrent The Big Bang Theory, I am not the moral equivalent of Rosa Parks. Someone who sat at the front of the bus, despite the color of her skin was in fact risking that skin. There was a very large social structure invested in keeping the races segregated and people were beaten and/or killed for violating that.

        Deciding that The Big Bang Theory is worth $

    • by bane2571 (1024309) on Monday August 27, 2012 @09:07PM (#41144439)
      Actually, yes. The entire purpose of copyright is to allow a creator a reasonable period of time to make profit on their work to promote the creation and distribution of that work. If a work is not actively being distributed anywhere, then logically it is past the reasonable period of making profit on it and should not be covered by copyright.
      • by AmiMoJo (196126)

        The problem with your argument is that a documentary could be off air for a decade or more before being repeated, at which point the copyright owner is in line for thousands of pounds of income.

        We just have to say "after 10 years that's it, you get nothing more and have to do some new work". That would encourage new work and be fair to everyone. There will always be a few cases of things only becoming popular decades after their initial release, but even then there is plenty of money to be made by the autho

    • by pla (258480)
      So evidently many of you folks believe this is reason enough to pirate the content.

      Um... Yes? Let us have it, for a decent price, and in a format we want... Or we'll just take it and the "content barons" can go pound sand. Simple as that.


      If a patent isn't available for licensing by its owner, and thus not "available for purchase anywhere," is that also reason enough to pirate the patent?

      Absolutely! I don't give the least damn about your "profit motive" when you want to let kids die because you w
    • by Charliemopps (1157495) on Monday August 27, 2012 @09:35PM (#41144627)
      Fuck prevailing law. Seriously. You think that just because it's always been it always has to be? The parties over. Content owners had their run and got incredibly rich while they could. Back in the 1800s people in Canada made a fortune chopping up ice from their frozen lakes late into the spring and summer, packing it in straw and shipping it south. They made a fortune from rich people living in the south and the Caribbean. Then someone invented the freezer. Oh snap.

      And before you get all high and mighty and tell us, well this is different, there are artists involved... no there are not. The people making money off the content in question here are doing EVEN LESS work than the people that shipped ice south. At least that was hard and had technical challenges. I'm a musician, I've worked with hundreds, if not thousands of other musicians. The vast vast majority of us make very little if any money playing music. We do it because it's a blast. The record companies use us to open for their acts, charge us ridiculous prices for copyrighted sheet music, to use studio time, it's all a sham. The only people making money are the record companies and ticket master and a very very very small minority of musicians. I bet if you talked to some of your favorite bands you'd find out they make far less than you thought. Record companies buy them clothes, rent them cars, all to make them "appear" wealthy. And if you think playing a large show makes you money? Fuck no. I've played shows where part of the contract was that WE THE BAND had to buy 100 tickets and sell them on our own. We had to pay to play the damned show. But that's the only way ticket master will let you in. In return you get exposure and maybe, just maybe, get to meet the headlining act and pick their brains if they're worth a shit.

      They don't have control anymore. I can distribute my music any way I fucking want. If people want to download it for free, fine... it's costing me a hell of a lot less than back when I had to pay $20k in studio time and then another $5k to get CDs pressed. Now I can pop MP3s onto a website... or advertise a show just about anywhere for free... Ticket master still has a cast iron grip on all the large venues but that'll change. And as far as robbing the recording industry? Do it. They more than deserve it.
    • by Dan667 (564390)
      Hollywood accounting is stealing. Interesting you have said nothing about that.
    • by xenobyte (446878)

      bad news for fans of UK shows that aren't available for purchase anywhere

      So evidently many of you folks believe this is reason enough to pirate the content.

      I do for one.

      Oh, and there's actually indirect legal precedent for this one - in several trademark, copyright and patent infringement cases a right holder has been denied compensation because they previously didn't actively pursue parties that infringed, thus effectively losing the rights. One of these is somewhat personal by the way; a close friend and her husband has both the trademark and the patent of several metal 'spinners' (metal artwork what spins in the wind, sometimes making bell-like noises when

    • by Xest (935314)

      In the UK we pay a TV license which is what covers the TV that UK Nova hosted, and it's not clear that UK Nova was actually doing anything illegal by allowing people to share recorded TV we've all already paid for like this as it was deemed akin to simply recording a show on VHS and sharing it with your friends.

      They've shut down because they can't afford to fight this sort of organisation, not because they were necessarily doing anything illegal.

      Your argument may have made sense in other countries, but here

      • The trouble with this argument is three fold:

        1) People outside the UK had access to the content. They did not pay a TV license and haven't contributed to that cost
        2) You're assuming that everyone in the UK downloading have paid for the licence
        3) The licence only pays for content produced by the BBC. Other TV companies have to make their money with adverts, but I would bet the UK Nova "producers" didn't leave the ads in.

        • by Xest (935314)

          I did use the site some years ago (I think when Spooks was on about season 4, before iPlayer provided it) and they always were very blunt about having to be a valid license holder to use the site, and were quite open that you would be banned if you were not, and that they in fact did even ban people quite often for exactly that, so with regards to points 1 and 2 it's merely a question of whether that was legitimate enough enforcement. I'd say it probably was which is precisely why it's taken so long (best p

          • The ad contracts are decided before broadcast, but the rates are based on the projected number of people watching a given program. If the projected number of people watching is significantly lower than expected, because everyone's gone off to watch it on the internet, when it comes to renewing those contracts, the TV producers won't make as much money.

            • by Xest (935314)

              The number of people viewing online has been static for the best part of a decade now and basically stems from the same pool of people who would used to have borrow a VHS from a friend, any adjustments for that have long been known. As a result contracts have long been based on that such that any financial calculation as to whether a show is viable based on ad revenue will be done purely on forecasted live viewing figures for this very reason.

              Unlike people who sell software, music, and DVDs as a product, th

    • The answer to your rethorical question, would surprisingly to you be mostly yes. In patent law, "lack of working over an extended period in the territory of the patent" is grounds for applying for a "compulsory license" - which is the legal equivalent of use it or loose it regarding patent protection.

      The other comparison also completely misses the point. The GPL'd software can clearly be licensed on fair and equal terms by everyone willing to abide by it's terms. The fact that the pricing on the software is

  • by freman (843586) on Monday August 27, 2012 @08:24PM (#41144113)

    If Links to content are infringement then I can sue them for linking to me, you can sue me for linking to slanderous content about you, everyone can sue the pants off Google.

    Not saying anyone in their right mind wants to do this, that would break a big part of the internet (yes, web site's aren't the internet but they're a big part of it)

    Am saying, how come FACT get to call a link to content infringing but the rest of us can't.

    • by kamapuaa (555446)

      Right, and handing a guy a gun isn't anything either, after all he has to take it himself.

      Also, exactly how many angels can balance on the head of a pin? I'm sure Slashdot's self-appointed lawyers can get to the bottom.

      • My name is a link to me. Does that mean I can issue a takedown notice to advertisers?
      • That's a stupid analogy. Instead of comparing links (one of the most mundane things out there) to a CONTROLLED FIREARM, why not compare it to say a stick. Sticks can be used to build things, hold things up and once in a while stab someone in the eye. Should it be illegal to leave a pile a sticks in front of your property because someone may go on an eye-stabbing spree?!?
    • If Links to content are infringement then I can sue them for linking to me, you can sue me for linking to slanderous content about you, everyone can sue the pants off Google.

      Basically, yes.

      However, as with most legal things, it is considerably more complex.

      I know of no English law case where a link was held to be an infringement of copyright in itself. There are textbooks suggesting it could be, and there's an obscure 90s Scottish, first-instance case using an older version of the law (about as non-binding a case as you can get) that says it might be, but otherwise we have a vague law (mostly written pre-web), and no application. So no one really knows. This creates enough unce

  • by TubeSteak (669689) on Monday August 27, 2012 @08:45PM (#41144277) Journal

    âoeWe immediately removed the alleged offending links to content that could be [connected to] the two companies and replied to FACT assuring them of our cooperation in the matter, but asking them to point out examples of potentially offending links,â a UKNova admin told us.

    âoeALL links or access to content provided by UKNova are infringing, unless you can prove that you have obtained explicit permission from the copyright holder for that content,â was FACTâ(TM)s response.

    If copyrighted content from only two Federation Against Copyright Theft (FACT) members was being shared, where does FACT get off telling UKNova that everything is assumed to be infringing?
    I mean, that's a lovely assumption, but unless FACT can show it represents the interests of those copyright holders, they have no standing to do anything against UKNova.
    Or is that not how the law works in the UK?

    • by 1u3hr (530656) on Monday August 27, 2012 @10:29PM (#41144931)

      I mean, that's a lovely assumption, but unless FACT can show it represents the interests of those copyright holders, they have no standing to do anything against UKNova. Or is that not how the law works in the UK?

      A C&D isn't issued by a court, it's just a letter from a lawyer.

      If UKNova had a QC to defend them in a court they might indeed win on that basis, five years and a million pounds later.

    • Fuckers Against Common Thought.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Just goes to show that you can't play nice with the copyright mafia(a). Might as well play nasty - Same thing in the end.

    AC

    • by Anaerin (905998) on Monday August 27, 2012 @09:13PM (#41144485)
      Mod parent up! UKNova was a very fine example of a site playing nice. Anything that was available to purchase on DVD, Blu-Ray or Pay Per View was explicitly banned from the site. Items that were uploaded were set to expire after 14 days, unless there was a DVD/Blu-Ray release imminent, in which case the torrent expired the night before release. There was nothing on that site that was purchasable anywhere else, and nothing that hadn't been broadcast over terrestrial airwaves for free (technically, funded by the License fee).
      • Oh well, I should just be thankful that http://thebox.bz/ [thebox.bz] is based in Belize.

      • by Mithent (2515236)
        Yeah, I had an account on UKNova several years ago, and I was always impressed with their principles - okay, not exactly abiding by the letter of the law, but doing it in a way that always seemed like nobody was losing out. It did nothing that you couldn't personally have done with a TV card/VCR/appropriate set-top box, if only you'd had it set up at the right time. It's a pity.
    • by shentino (1139071)

      You can play nice.

      The problems is that they are greedy fucks that won't play nice with you.

  • by jtownatpunk.net (245670) on Monday August 27, 2012 @09:22PM (#41144541)

    Holders of trademarks and such are required to go after every infringer they're aware of or they lose the right to protect their IP. Flip it around and make it necessary for content owners to provide their content for sale in order to make an infringement claim. If they're not currently selling or licensing their content, they should lose the right to protect it from unauthorized distribution.

    • by asdf7890 (1518587)

      Flip it around and make it necessary for content owners to provide their content for sale in order to make an infringement claim.

      What about specially commissioned private works? If I have a poster design, video, or what-ever, made for myself or a company, would you have the right to copy it? What about my photos from a family holiday that are on my website? Can GreedyShister Ltd. copy them for use in their promotional materials simply because I'm not offering them for sale?

      Works in progress would have similar problems: if I hand out a part finished work for people to look at and give feedback (or just because they are interested e

  • UK "justice" is pretty messed up - a private entity can prosecute individuals.

    Ars has a great article about how FACT put the owner of SurfTheChannel behind bars for four years. Maybe this is why UKNova are complying with these idiots.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/08/private-justice-how-hollywood-money-put-a-brit-behind-bars [arstechnica.com]

  • Thanks UKN (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    BBC iPlayer, 4OD etc. official streaming services was a direct response to UKNova.
    DVD releases of many, many UK shows immediately after the season ended (during in the case of Dr. Who) can be attributed to UKNovas no torrenting stuff available for purchase.

    Thanks to file sharing pioneers like UKNova, we can stream almost all the content (providing you use a UK proxy)

    It can also be credited for preserving many, many old shows that would no doubt be lost forever, by inviting users to raid their attics for VHS

  • by JRR006 (830025) on Monday August 27, 2012 @09:54PM (#41144721)

    Because I'd love to. Let me pay the licence fee and have access to BBC iPlayer, legally, and that would cover most of what I want to see.

    It wouldn't help for other channels, but what does Channel 4 really have? Jimmy Carr? Meh. Though I would like ITV for shows that only make their way to PBS years later...

    Fire all the lawyers everywhere and hire some more techs and make it happen.

    • the problem with the BBC iPlayer is that you can only watch whatever's been shown in the past week. After than, it is dissappeared to keep the copyright holders happy so they can then bundle things up in DVDs to sell to us again and to other markets.
  • ... stop watching their content entirely. Stop writing about them and stop discussing what they do. Being ignored is the ultimate punishment for a media company gone bad.

Remember: use logout to logout.

Working...