Illegal video clips are back on Koptalk

After losing the person who supplied most of the clips for him (he’d not realised that Dunk was using his contributions as a way of selling subscriptions) Dunk had to provide the clips himself. But if he’s not paid for them (this lot were mainly stolen from ITV and Sky) then why should you? He’s not legally allowed, despite what he says, to post these clips on a server based in the UK. (I wonder if his new web hosts are aware he’s doing this?) He is also certainly not allowed to sell a subscription to enable “members” to view this stolen footage.

Especially when you think of the millions paid out by Sky and ITV for the rights. Rights that allow ITV to set this page up – http://www.championsleague.itv.com showing the full match from last night.

In another bit of Koptalk Komedy, Dunk also tries to password protect the files, so that search engines don’t find the clips. Well without us putting the links on this blog, search engines wouldn’t even know they existsed, as Dunk has hidden the links out of the reach of the search engines.

KOPTALK.COM
Team Member
Reged: Jul 28 2003
Posts: 24458

PSV v Liverpool – pre-match pc – VIDEO
#1640934 – Tue Sep 12 2006 01:44 PM          Reply      Quote

The following clip is from Sky Sports News.

It is a .rv file (Real Player). You can download Real Player for free from http://www.real.com or by using this link –>>

You need to log-in to the videos page to view the clip.

PLAY

Username: www_koptalk_com (lowercase)
Password: come2koptalk (lowercase)

The password protection is not to deter non-members. It’s there to prevent the directory from getting picked up by search engines. Do not archive.

So to help those search engines, try this instead – Koptalk’s stolen video of Champions League Press Conference. (He’s still saying “Do Not Archive” like it gets him off the hook. Try that next time you go shoplifting.)

KOPTALK.COM
Team Member
Reged: Jul 28 2003
Posts: 24458
PSV v LFC – Bellamy pre-match clip – VIDEO
#1641203 – Tue Sep 12 2006 07:43 PM          Reply      Quote

You need to log-in to the videos page to view the clip.

PLAY

Username: www_koptalk_com (lowercase)
Password: come2koptalk (lowercase)

The password protection is not to deter non-members. It’s there to prevent the directory from getting picked up by search engines. Do not archive.

Again, to help the search engines, try this – Koptalk’s stolen video interview of Craig Bellamy.

Now it’s an interview with Dirk Kuyt post match…

KOPTALK.COM
Team Member

Reged: Jul 28 2003
Posts: 24458

PSV 0-0 LFC – Kuyt post-match – VIDEO
#1641705 – Tue Sep 12 2006 10:43 PM          Reply      Quote

The following clip is from ITV.

This is a .rv file (Real Player). You can download Real Player for free from http://www.real.com or by using this link –>>

You need to log-in to the videos page to view the clip.

KUYT POST-MATCH – PLAY

Username: www_koptalk_com (lowercase)
Password: come2koptalk (lowercase)

The password protection is not to deter non-members. It’s there to prevent the directory from getting picked up by search engines. Do not archive.

——————–

For any passing search engines or people who want to inform his ISP or the original holders of the copyright, try this – Koptalk’s stolen video of Dirk Kuyt being interviewed.

Now for some more stolen video, this time from ITV…

ST3
KopTalk Editor

Reged: Sep 12 2003
Posts: 8137

Re: PSV 0-0 Liverpool – POST MATCH THREAD  [Re: Jesper K]
#1641610 – Tue Sep 12 2006 10:05 PM          Reply      Quote

The following clips are from ITV.

These are .rv files (Real Player). You can download Real Player for free from http://www.real.com or by using this link –>>

You need to log-in to the videos page to view the clips.

HT – PLAY

FT – PLAY

Username: www_koptalk_com (lowercase)
Password: come2koptalk (lowercase)

The password protection is not to deter non-members. It’s there to prevent the directory from getting picked up by search engines. Do not archive.

Edited by KOPTALK.COM (Tue Sep 12 2006 10:08 PM)

Again – Stolen from ITV by Koptalk – First half summary of PSV v LFC CL game.

also –  Stolen from ITV by Koptalk – Second-half summary of PSV v LFC CL game.

How much would he have had to pay per clip if he was a legitimate user of the service I wonder? Here’s another one…

ST3 KopTalk Editor
Reged: Sep 12 2003
Posts: 8137
Re: PSV v Liverpool – CONFIRMED TEAM & MATCH THREAD [Re: Kop_5]
#1641412 – Tue Sep 12 2006 09:12 PM          Reply

KUYT CHANCE

It is a .rv file (Real Player). You can download Real Player for free from http://www.real.com or by using this link –>>

You need to log-in to the videos page to view the clip.

PLAY

Username: www_koptalk_com (lowercase)
Password: come2koptalk (lowercase)

The password protection is not to deter non-members. It’s there to prevent the directory from getting picked up by search engines. Do not archive.

You’ll notice that none of these links require a password. I wonder how long it will be before he panics and takes them all off? Dirk Kuyt Chance – Stolen by Koptalk.

He’s also trying to pass off this audio report as it it’s one of his own. It belongs to Teamtalk though…

KOPTALK.COM
Team Member

Reged: Jul 28 2003
Posts: 24458

Re: PSV 0-0 Liverpool – POST MATCH THREAD  [Re: thesilverfoxlfc]
#1641638 – Tue Sep 12 2006 10:14 PM          Reply      Quote

AUDIO REPORT  (links to http://tinyurl.com/fkzt9, which links to   http://audio.teamtalk.com/Football/LiveH3G.WMA)

——————–

Also there’s a bit of a pattern emerging here over what your £30 will get you if you want streaming footage of football matches. Once again a link to someone else’s site. Worth paying an overweight conman thirty quid for? No. And you’ll also notice that rather than pretending to be “NJRED” or his other new alias, he decided to post the link to the illegal streams using the DunkenStein login, so that young Steve can get into trouble should anything happen. Well Steve, if you did get taken to court for this, I’m sure there’s a long list of people willing to vouch for you if you tell them it was Dunk posting using your username. Do the people behind the site linked to below know that Dunk is charging people 30 quid for there information?

ST3
KopTalk Editor

Reged: Sep 12 2003
Posts: 8137

PSV v Liverpool – LIVE ONLINE
#1640733 – Tue Sep 12 2006 10:13 AM          Reply      Quote

INFO   (This was a link to http://www.myp2p.eu/Matches/Match3.htm)
Post Extras:

plyne
Gold Member

Reged: Jun 30 2002
Posts: 1422
Loc: Sweden

Re: PSV v Liverpool – LIVE ONLINE  [Re: ST3]
#1641109 – Tue Sep 12 2006 06:20 PM          Reply      Quote

How do i do??? i only get connected to Tawainese lesbian porn )

——————–

Advertisements

31 Responses to “Illegal video clips are back on Koptalk”

  1. Chunka Says:

    Links are gone… Fattys on the ball today

  2. Rubyred Says:

    I haven’t read all of this so excuse me if I’ve got this wrong, but you seem to be suggesting that KT are illegally reproducing material previously shown by other broadcasters (ITV, sky etc).

    This may be of interest to you, as the judicial finding of the Australian Court would have credence in ours.

    The High Court of Australia recently had to adjudicate on a claim of breach of copyright between two t.v channels – Channel 9 and Channel 10.

    It involved a claim that Channel 10 had breached 9’s copyright when they reproduced excerpts from 9’s programmes without asking permission.

    The High Court decided that –

    “television broadcasters, and OTHER USERS of broadcasts, are not required to obtain permission for the re-broadcast of any material, previously broadcast by a broadcaster”.

    I know this is an Australian decision, but as you may know English law uses cases heard in Australian, American etc courts as precedents for law judgements here.

    I don’t know if this would be relevent to internet reproduction, but I would guess the phrase “and other users of broadcasts” would cover what you are describing.

  3. Insider Insider Says:

    I’ve just managed to download a couple of them again – I didn’t try them all but the ones I tried were OK.

    Not sure how that Channel 9 v Channel 10 case would work here, even just a couple of weeks ago I heard one of the News programmes talking about Tennis and telling viewers the latest scores and incidents, but then saying, they couldn’t show the action due to rights restrictions. I paid little attention to it to be honest, but I think it was the BBC News, and so perhaps the tennis was on Sky Sports. They didn’t want to risk broadcasting something that had already been broadcast by another channel. How far did that Australian case go, i.e. is is it over and done with now or are there further routes for appeal.

    If that Australian ruling were brought into play in the UK it would seriously open the floodgates for a lot of changes!

  4. Koptalksucks.com Says:

    I think the point more than anything is that he is using someone elses work to make money (in this case Sky/ITV). Many people take a few clips from TV broadcasts of footy matches to make compilations and similar, the difference is they won’t be using it as a tool to make money.

  5. Strange Says:

    Best one you’ve done in a while.

  6. Toby Says:

    Its a rights issue, so bears no relevence to the Australian case at all. UEFA own the broadcast rights to the match and ITV/Sky purchase the rights to show the footage. Anyone then re-broadcasting that footage is in breach of copyright.

  7. Rubyred Says:

    It is over and done with. I can’t find the article now, but the case was originally upheld by the lower court, but the tv station was given leave to appeal.

    It was in Australias High Court, their equivalent of our Court of Appeal, that the final decision was made. There is no other route of appeal in Australia.

    I think their argument in allowing the appeal was that the whole content of Channel 10’s programmes did not consist of the Channel 9 material, it was only a snippet, or a small part of their overall presentation. I don’t know what the KT download showed, but I would imagine it was part of a programme that featured news about LFC only, and not the whole content of Sky’s programme.

    If that is the case then I do not think, using the Australian ruling as a guide, tht KT is in breach of copyright.

    I’m not a legal expert by any means, but KT could probably claim the same defence if anyone were to complain.

    As for using these clips as a tool to make money, the same argument holds. The videos are being used a part of a package, not the entire reason for the site. The fact that he is charging for membership of the site is incidental.

    If people want to hand over money to be a member of KT, and are happy with the service they receive then that’s up to them.

  8. silentbutdeadly Says:

    Rubyred

    You are very wrong on this, alas I have neither the time nor inclination to spend the 20 minutes typing. Suffice to say, were it a big enough issue for the broadcasters to sue, they would do so, and he would lose.

  9. Rubyred Says:

    Well Silent, I may be wrong.

    I do know that cases heard in other High Courts can be cited in our courts aas precedent (and vice versa). I remember when I was studying law that we had to write many essays citing precedence in courts abroard, and their decisions are applicable to us.

    I have tried to explain the ruling in this case and how it MAY affect KT.

    However you may be more knowledgable than me in this field, I accept that.

    I think the most telling part of your post is “were it a big enough issue” the broadcasters would sue.

    Obviously the only people bothered by this copyright issue are on this blog!

  10. An Observer Says:

    As Toby says, the rights are owned by UEFA, the broadcasters purchase the right to show them for a limited period – the ITV website has the rights for 2 days, after that they have to take them down. If fatty wants to show them, he needs to purchase the rights from UEFA, and the fat cunt doesn’t have anything close to the money required to do so.

    Regardless of how things work in Australia, it is totally irrelevant.

  11. rupertinsider Says:

    “Obviously the only people bothered by this copyright issue are this blog!”

    So why do you go to such pains to offer a defence? What’s the situation in Out Mongolia – think that may get him off the hook?

    Obviously, given the pains Oldham takes to dodge and weave – he knows very well who is bothered by it.

  12. Rubyred Says:

    Insider was expressing a point of view that copyright may have been breached by KT. That may be the case. All I did was raise the possibility that according to Australian law, which is also relevant in our courts, this may not be the case.

    I did not think I was commiting some sort of crime by having a debate about this with him, in fact Insider asked a further question after my post which I responded to as clearly as I could.

    Rupertinsider – My comment about the blog was meant to be taken lightheartedly, I apologise if that caused offence. It was not meant to be in any way offensive to the people who write or post on here. Unfortunately there are no smiley faces available I can put on here to illustrate the meaning behind my comment.

    I am not trying to get anyone off the hook, or offer a defence. Just having a debate and exchanging points of view. The courts in Outer Mongolia are not connected to ours in any way I don’t think, so their views on this are irrelevent.

    (Where’s that smiley when I need it)

    It doesn’t hurt to express views and opinions, that’s what this site has built itself on surely?

  13. rupertinsider Says:

    Rubyred:

    You can make a smiley by using colons hyphen and bracket – it turns it into one of these 🙂

    However, its not necessary. I read your first posts as an interesting commentary which helped clarify the issue. I took your blog comment at face value and replied to it in the same way.

    Obviously, Oldham intends to continue his decade long practice of stealing copyrighted materials or products which normally require a license and then re-selling it to maximise his profits.

    It is more difficult for him now since the blog has alerted the owners of the copyright . So he is dodging and weaving to find new ways of avoiding detection.

    In the process, LFC supporters have not been deprived of anything. They can get all the links and video clips and stories elsewhere without paying for any of it – not even 30 pounds a year.

  14. AH Says:

    Hi all,

    Quick question for those who are current members of Koptalk..

    Roughly How many people are a part of Koptalk.. when I say a part I mean how many “Gold Club” members are there approximatly?

    Cheers

    AH

  15. AH Says:

    Also,

    One more thing.. Not related to this topic but an idea all the same….

    As you know the Koptalk podcasts are pretty high in the ratings on Itunes.. not sure if the results have been doctored or not and thats not my issue of discussion..

    But i know that this site has created a Podcast of its own.. with snippets of things that Oldham has said??

    Have any of you considered creating an LFC podcast endorsed by all the other lfc fan sites that goes up against their podcast?? I’m not sure what it would comprise of other than news, views etc but it could also highlight the actions of Oldham and also knock the current podcast from its position??

    Also if it were endorsed by the other lfc fans sites then it would surely bring in more people??

    Wanted your views on the idea??

    Cheers

    AH

  16. Rubyred Says:

    Rupert – thanks for the smiley info.

    As I said I meant no offence at all by my comment about the blog and apologise if any was caused.

  17. txtoto Says:

    Anyone emailed ITV yet. This time he’s clearly using koptalk to promotoe illegal feeds while before it was one of his members. Im sure some form of legal action can be taken by the tv stations.

  18. Rosco Says:

    Rubyred – Australian Case law is merely persuasive case law in England and Wales. No precedent would be set by this decision.

  19. Toby Says:

    This Is Anfield already offer a far superior quality podcast than Koptalk, with relevent LFC information broadcast in a professional manner rather than a North Yorshire sexist racist rant about Koptalk rivals.

    http://www.thisisanfield.com/content.php?page_id=443

  20. Toby Says:

    A notification to the hosts should suffice:
    http://www.ukfast.net/contact_support.html?d=Support

    If you list the urls of the offending clips they will be able to find them regardless of any of his halfhearted password protection methods.

  21. rupertinsider Says:

    AH

    Two points:

    1. Most of his listeners would have arrived out of curiosity from News Now where links to his Podcasts were provided along with his claim that they were EXCLUSIVE and contained breaking news about LFC. News Now has now informed him that they will no longer list his Podcasts. So he will be scrambling for listeners.

    2. Several contributors to the blog have pointed out that the ITunes rating is a joke. You can get any podcast to the top of the rating by clicking on it twenty or thirty times.

    Oldham is well-known clicker. That’s what he uses his “editor” for and his Ma. In the past – 2000 – he organised the manipulation of a poll run by a magazine as to which was the on the best sports sitse. He got the users of KT to click arodgn the clock. he kept up a running commentary on the totals. Some saw it as a laugh or a competition with clickers from United sites.

    All those who clicked have logn since left KT and forgotten about those few hours of misspent youth. But not Oldham. Its seix years later and he still puts a banner on his site and in his Google tags that Koptalk was “voted” No. 1 Sports site in the world and No. 1 Footabll site in the UK. He doesn’t explain that it was voted a such by himself, hsi family and a few lads on his forum that day.

  22. txtoto Says:

    unfortunately I was one of the clickers!!
    How i regret spending my time promoting that fat arse web site. He made in clear to everyone that it meant a lot to koptalk if people went to vote for them. It only meant more money in his pocket the fat cunt.

  23. rupertinsider Says:

    txtoto: I remmber that at one point, KT had fallen way behind, it was approaching midnight, there were few left on the forum and the poll would clsoe the next day. But in the morning KT had taken a big leadand “won”. Obviously Fatso had stayed up half the night clicking.

  24. AH Says:

    @Toby

    This is Anfield podcast .. mate are you having a laugh??

    Unless I’m mistake they’ve only done one podcast??? and it was over a month ago !!!!

    I’m refering to a regular liverpool fc update fella..

  25. Ron Nasty Says:

    AH no longer talks like Smoove

  26. AH Says:

    @Ron Nasty

    I don’t think your paying attention mate… Think you should let the question pass you by if its going over your head rather than comment and act like a dick head…

  27. RedinSweden Says:

    You aren’t paying attention either. The other day I pointed out your misuse of “your” and “you’re” and you are still doing it.

  28. 1488 Says:

    i like the way he links to tinyurl.com, so the site hosting the audio file on the real link doesnt notice anything dodgy when that file has been downloaded 50+ times directly from kt… sneaky.

  29. AH Says:

    @RedinSweden

    I agree that i have made a gramatical error and fair enough…

    But …I will repeat again that you seem to mention gramatical errors as opposed to discussing the key points of my arguement… If you stopped wasting time on the trivialities and focused on the key points of what I am trying to say then solutions could be found… Hence my reason for stating that you have missed the point..

    Is that simple enough for you to comprehend mate..

    cheers !!

    AH

  30. rupertinsider Says:

    “If you stopped wasting time on the trivialities and focused on the key points of what I am trying to say then solutions could be found…”

    Solutions for what?

    I’ve never done a poll, but I’d guess that majority of LFC supporters who are aware of Oldham and Koptalk think the range of solutions is clear:

    (a) that Koptalk be closed down permanently:

    (b) that Koptalk be allowed to continue but Oldham be permanently removed from any connection with it – and that does not mean replacing him with a puppet from his family.

    (c) that Oldham be held to account for any abuses of the law on taxation and benefits and any breach of trust or fraud with respect to any of the appeals he has conducted:

    (d) that Oldham refund current and former members all monies they paid him on the good faith understanding that

    (1) he had inside news and whispers from inside anfield, melwood and the academy and that he was in written or verbal communciation with LFC officials:
    (2) that he wrote a book which would be published in 2004,2005 and 2006
    (3) that he was running fair competitions and lotteries and that prizes would be awarded and delivered to the winners.

    (e) that Oldham apologise for his hostile behaviour towards other LFC supporter sites, his slander of the good name of the owners, directors, executives of LFC its players and employees: and also apologise for his repeated statements that people have encouraged the kidnap and rape of his daughers or have attacked his children: and also apologise for his talk of hitmen and underworld friends in connection with his critics: and apologise for breaching the trust of his members by calling their place of employment and threatenting them with exposure:

    This is not an exhaustive dicsussion of what a solution would consist of.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: