Talk:EZTV

EZTV had advertisments ("Download Fast" links for more than few months of this scandal.) yes while EZTV did have these links they weren't adverts, however click-throughs, pop-up and pop-under advertising and hosting their own torrents were never used as Nova is quoted and as stated in the article, EZTV is not for profit and no hosting nor ad revenue would be made to prevent litigation on profiting from piracy.

Citation needed for this claim - there is nothing officially posted by those websites which claim this. - Seems unlikely that there would be an announcement since EZTV is dissolved there is no one to make that announcement regarding not being an affiliate and back end work regarding preventing indexing would not be forth coming since it would defeat the purpose if they knew what was being done about it.

An IRC Channel is not an official source of information since anyone can place any topic/subject there. - Given that the channel bots are still running no one can make edits without channel rights let alone speak since every one is auto muted it is also quoted by MVGroup who were partners with EZTV who were in the channel at the time of the announcement information available on their forum - registration required.

Management of the website is the same, these are just claims without actual proves. - If you are going by the forums or anything on that page it should all be taken with a grain of salt given they own the domain and have a clone of the site, they can post anything they want as Novaking it does not mean it is them, this is the whole point of stealing the brand and pretending to be someone else. Domain holder information is a matter of public record whois all line up with the hijack and new owners as is quoted in the TorrentFreak article while not source for conjecture on this site it is still correct any edits relating to ownership being passed back to the original team would need to be sourced not the other way around as no source for return nor Nova or anyone else originally connected to the site is available the hijack and takeover would still stand unless proven otherwise with a viable source.

The official EZTV Bitcoin address is displayed on the website. - A bitcoin with an EZTV string does not make it official it just makes it a bitcoin with an EZTV string, the header posted bitcoin and the EZTV official bitcoin which is sourceable from other locations (their releases on other sites and their own official forum including the one on the clone site for example) do not match and as no announcement was made before the takeover regarding the a bitcoin change and no source after takeover is available either only a change after the date that EZTV was hijacked it can't be claimed to be official as there is no source for the change.

Adverts were present on the website for more months. - only on the .it domain and not the .ch domain up until the point that it was taken over by EZCLOUD then the adverts started on the other domains and the proxy.

As I said in an edit comment it appears a lot of the edits going on in this page are widely biased or have definite intent to remove sourced information meaning this has turned into a pissing contest. I'm in favour of leaving as is unless people can prove with source the claims beyond the hijack and announcement of EZTV official to disband, as beyond that point it is EZCLOUD an unknown and untrusted source by the torrent community and no information is forthcoming, if such information arises then a new section should be made for that purpose, however the mass edits to the hijack section should stop unless they can be verified while some are borderline OR they do back up the statements in the article Majikthise.uk (talk) 19:44, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Comments regarding further information for article it seems that the torrent cache at zoink now also redirect to eztv.ch and the whois matches with the people who hijacked EZTV, I would like to add this to the article under redirects but I think this is too close to OR given that there is no source other then the public whois record,^[1] wondering if this was the "other projects" that  81.107.57.5 (talk) was talking about before I edited it out - Majikthise.uk (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

... whoever may be running it now. As torrent news sites note, it does a lot of pop-under ads and such, but it's still operating. 24.23.163.55 (talk) 09:55, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we can see that. It's not the same EZTV though as it was, even if it tries hard to pretend to be the same. If a demon possesses the corpse of dead grandma then it does not mean that grandma is alive again. If the possessed corpse becomes notable on its own then we can write about it here. Until then, this article will describe grandma as being dead. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 10:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

None of the notable uploaders will work with them, so they are super slow in comparison to EZTV and have unrecognizable uploaders. Additionally, the possessed demon's torrents are completely virus ridden, that is why you don't see any EZTV tagged torrents anymore on any of the major torrent sites. Of all the torrent shops to raid, I will wish they could knock this one out and stop the spread of their botnets. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatman (talk • contribs) 05:32, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Sounds like a bunch of FUD to me. It isn't possible for a movie file to give you a virus or trojan. Taking a quick look through EZTV.ag, I don't even see any executables like self-extracting archives. It's either raw video files or, rarely, RAR archives. I also see plenty of releases in common between this site and, e.g., ThePirateBay. So whatever the issues were two years ago, they seem resolved now. 73.71.224.145 (talk) 22:50, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like that the hijackers have put up another clone site on the eztv.ag domain, which also links to 'mirrors' at eztv.it and eztv.ch. More disturbingly, this new mirror is currently showing up at the top of the google search results for 'eztv'. Pacula (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

It appears that they are using the 'group' extensively. They have generated several thousand forum posts, all the same user based on the writing style (no use of capitals, same grammatical and punctuation errors, etc.) and are trying to make it appear as though EZTV 'is back' and 'back to normal.' They have adopted the identities of existing users in the community. It's quite an exciting crime, because they have put in a significant amount of research. Even more so because the owners--assumedly to avoid what they feared may be some criminal woes they might face if they reported it to the authorities--actually left themselves open to significantly worse charges through vicarious liability through their inaction to attempt to rectify the matter.

Trying to think of a way I can explain it without using overly complex wording. I own a car that may or may not have some defects that would net me some serious fines. My car gets stolen. Rather than reporting it stolen and attempting to get it back in fear that during the recovery the authorities might notice said defects and fine me I instead shrug and walk away. I see the car driving down the street running down pedestrians. I know most people know that I don't own the car anymore and it was stolen, so I assume I won't be held liable for running down those pedestrians. But for my inaction of regaining my property I allowed and facilitated the crimes the criminals committed with my stolen property and therefore end up open to far worse criminal liability than the initial fines would have netted me HAD the defects even been noticed. (It's a bit hit and miss whether they could be charged with anything given the way torrents distribute, it's a case of can I sue a map book maker for listing a road to the place I tripped and fell over.

Ok, enough bad analogies I promise. I'm just very interested to see when or if they group or legitimate owner is going to put the brakes on his runaway car and report it at least. And to what lengths the hijackers are going to go. It truly doesn't seem like their intent is overtly criminal, they could have done a lot of things that would have ruined it. It appears more so that they want to become the owner of the project itself, and keep it running, whilst loosely looking for fast ways to make a buck. Either way, this matter definitely isn't over and time will tell just how far the hijackers go. But with equal interest, and unfortunately not even noted in this article, is the inaction of such a large and organised group of people. You'd think they would fight tooth and nail to recover their baby, especially given all the work and man hours put into the project. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 02:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Rather than simply removing something you disagree with, consider correcting it if you think it is wrong. However the inaction is in itself an action, and it is one of significant import from a legal stand point as in an attempt to avoid a potential legal quagmire they have inherently left themselves open to a significantly more vast one through negligence through inaction (the hijackers nefarious uses / but for the inaction of the legitimate owner, et cetera.) I have extensively tried to find ANY evidence of an attempt to regain control of the domain name and failed. In fact, there are numerous 'interviews' where the owner appears to have just walked away from the scene altogether - albeit they are in formats not acceptable as sources for Wikipedia, perhaps you can find one I missed? But it seems clear the overall reaction was one of resignation, even though they had numerous legal avenues through which to seek relief through tort, criminal, or even international law. <!//– ☠ ʇdɯ0ɹd ɥsɐq ☠ // user // talk // twitter //–> 02:20, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"removing something you disagree with" -- honestly? disagree with? What is it that you think I "disagree" with? Wikipedia:No original research is not an opinion, it's policy. Please either find a reliable source or remove that statement from the article. (Just because you can't find a source for something happening doesn't mean that you have sufficient proof that it didn't happen.) It seems biased and accusatory to bring that thing up when apparently no reliable source has commented on that. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:27, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Majikthise.uk seems to have taken up the cause of protecting the new scam owners of EZTV by constantly removing sourced information of MVGroup no longer posting on EZTV willingly. In my source http://forums.mvgroup.org/index.php?showtopic=60964 , the major encoder/releaser Jungleboy and karmax264 discuss the fact that EZTV is now a scam site and that "The eztv site is effectively lost which means no MVGroup stuff will appear there". At the bottom encoder karmax264 is seen breaking the news that scam site EZTV is now stealing MVGroup rips. karmax264 saying "Looks like MVG torrents are being posted to EZTV, even though we are no longer crossposting there."

Seems like Majikhise will only accept sourced information from someone like the NY Times. Have to wonder who he works for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.21.103 (talk • contribs)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We have a few rules here, an important one of them being Wikipedia:Verifiability. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 09:26, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What I am doing is removing information and a link to a private board thread with aggregated opinions that while might be fact can't be backed up by a reliable source, IE : one that is acceptable to Wikipedia as source material. I don't care if it's the person who releases every single item they release to every torrent site, in the same way that advertising the scammers new domain or that they are trying to pretend to be Yify, it is irrelevant to the article as much as this information. As for "you must want a NY Times article" yes I'd take that as a source, I would even take TorrentFreak because they are verifiable and at least covered by journalistic practices.

It boils down to the fact that anyone could be posting that information. On top of that I am not the only person to ask you not to post that information yet you repeatedly re-add it to the article and I was not interested in getting into an edit war about it but you need to accept what people tell you, it is borderline Wikipedia:No original research which the article has enough of but at least the other stuff all have an acceptable source attached to it. It's not about protecting anyone except the quality of the article you even say yourself that it's two people "discussing" that fact in the thread.

Simply put that section covers MVG ties to the original EZTV not their ties if any to the scammers, since EZTV proper no long exist that precludes MVG involvement with the scammers. It does not need to be stated that they don't work with them only if they were. It's like this - Agreement between EZTV and MVG to release on site / EZTV disabands / MVG no long have agreement since other party no longer exist. The issue only arises if MVG agree to work with EZTV Scammers since that is a new agreement and it has nothing to do with the previous agreement with EZTV. That would be new information however that also wouldn't be relevant to this article since it's about EZTV and since it no longer exists there would be nothing to add, if MVG had their own article then it would be relevant to that page or even a new article page about EZTV scammers, since neither of those exist it still doesn't belong on the page.

If there was an MVG page I would see it as limited at best since most of the information is already on this page as part of their ties to EZTV it would proberbly be rolled into this article and any article wholly on EZTV scammers would probably be taken down due to advertising a scam.

So again do not add that information back into the article since it is irrelevant and not sourced properly. Quick edit : If you are insistent on having that information listed I can think of other ways to add it to the article such as part of the section on BT-Chat, TPB cancelling the accounts of EZTV rather then the MVG section it sill would be unsourced and unverifiable but more in keeping with the content. Personally I wouldn't since they aren't mentioned in the source material but again my two cents and part of the reason why I wanted you to bring it to the talk page in the first place Majikthise.uk (talk) 16:51, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Yet half the page is unsourced, but you don't seem to care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.22.25 (talk • contribs)

That information was added by consensus and referenced correctly after discussion, as we tried to make you do but unlike the information you wanted to add which doesn't fit Wikipedia guidelines it was removed and editors decided it wasn't for the article, since you have now taken to vandalism to get what you want you have more then likely lost what little respect people will give you around here, even more so since you'll hide without an account to push an agenda to get your information added by manipulation Majikthise.uk (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

This needs to stop and now despite multiple removals by different people and requests to stop the anon user (76.0.19.7 / 76.0.22.91 / 76.0.17.167 / 76.0.21.103 / last 76.0.22.25) has been warned on no less then five different occasions now by three contributors to stop adding the same unsourced and irrelevant material to the page, and even asked to take place in a discussion on this talk page before re-adding the same information.

Apparently this is not good enough for them to consider as proper procedure in conflicted information resolution and they are looking like they will keep going ahead and adding it anyway even after removal, can we now class this as vandalism? Thereby I am now requesting intervention since I personally want this war to end as I want no part and since other contribs seem to be in agreement that this information is not relevant nor sourced correctly by the majority it should stay removed and something should be done either revoke their rights or semi-protected that section.

I tried to reach a compromise via talk but I'm done, any attempt by them to re-add after my last removal will now be tagged vandalism by myself. Since they obviously don't want to make an account they can't be that interested in the content nor quality of the information they are providing other then adding that information to an already borderline OR article section even going so far as to use a poor screen grab to try and back themselves up since the original "source" was protected by registration. — Majikthise.uk (talk) 18:01, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Felt even more necessary this time since the screen grab contained personable identifiable information under Wikipedia:DOB which is why some of that information was excluded originally. — Majikthise.uk (talk) 18:32, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

What personal information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.0.22.25 (talk • contribs)

Good to see you not reading any of the information in that thread you want to add Majikthise.uk (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on EZTV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for https://rarbg.to/index8.php
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bt-chat.com/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130731181453/http://community.virginmedia.com:80/t5/Announcements/EZTV-Blocked-by-Court-Order/m-p/1923144 to http://community.virginmedia.com/t5/Announcements/EZTV-Blocked-by-Court-Order/m-p/1923144

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on EZTV. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150430132950/https://rarbg.to/index8.php to https://rarbg.to/index8.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

This needs to be rewritten to stop using past tense and to stop engaging in one-sided "fanboy" WP:OR about the topic. There was no interruption worth mentioning in "service", between the original crew operating EZTV and the post-takeover maintainers. The fact that it was blatantly taken over is quite interesting and should be covered. But the present article taking the fantasizing stance that EZTV is gone and a thing of the historical past is a severe WP:NPOV failure. You could call it a textbook example of how not to encyclopedically document part of the "copyright counterculture" of the Internet.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Downloaded and watching so it works. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7320:6a00:410:c259:d56e:ad5 (talk • contribs)

No, you used a copycat site, as is detailed in the article. - MrOllie (talk) 11:24, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

We cannot conflate the scammers who stole the domain and set up a new site with the original group. This is like suggesting that I can buy a car from nissan.com, or that if someone steals my cell phone number and impersonates me, they have become me. - MrOllie (talk) 15:27, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

No its not. The article is titled 'EZTV' not 'EZTV(NovaKing version)' or something like that, so the present state of the site which is online and the #1 TV torrent site should absolutely be included in this article regardless of who runs it. You are blatantly wrong here MrOllie and it's honestly laughable. 2401:4900:4916:BC15:15D4:883F:AD74:C6B2 (talk) 15:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

The article begins (and has for years) with 'EZTV is a TV torrent distribution group founded in May 2005 by NovaKing.'. It is about the group, not about another group that came along and opened another site with the same branding. - MrOllie (talk) 15:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Bro why are you lying, i just checked and the information about NovaKing was only recently added by someone called PeakyblindersOMGS. You are embarrassing MrOllie. 2401:4900:4916:BC15:F9C2:4D64:F6F7:8AB0 (talk) 15:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

You're right, it used to be 'a TV torrent distribution group founded in May 2005 ', a distinction without a difference. - MrOllie (talk) 15:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't founded in 2005. I just said it still exists. Are you arguing against yourself MrOllie? 2401:4900:4916:BC15:F9C2:4D64:F6F7:8AB0 (talk) 15:43, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

EZCloud Limited was founded in 2015, ergo not the same group. - MrOllie (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2021 (UTC)