Slashdot Mirror
Canada Federal Court Restrains Sale Of 'Pirate' Boxes (torrentfreak.com)
An anonymous reader writes:The Federal Court in Canada has handed down an interlocutory injunction against distributors of Android-based set-top boxes configured for piracy. The devices, which are loaded with software including Kodi (with pirate addons) and Showbox, are now banned from sale pending a full trial.Judge Daniele Tremblay-Lamer wrote in her order: "The devices marketed, sold and programmed by the Defendants enable consumers to obtain unauthorized access to content for which the Plaintiffs own the copyright. [...] They deliberately encourage consumers and potential clients to circumvent authorized ways of accessing content -- say, by a cable subscription or by streaming content from the Plaintiffs' websites -- both in the manner in which they promote their business, and by offering tutorials in how to add and use applications which rely on illegally obtained content."
Honestly, I'd prefer it if they just came set up with Kodi and no add-ons. Configuring Exodus or Spectro is simple enough and most of the add-ons I do not need pre-installed.
The things are putting a negative slant on Android, as if it's a platform for piracy. Hell, I'd say a good chunk of people with "Android boxes" have no idea what it's even doing. I actually appreciate taking these things out of the hands of noobs.
As an avid Kodi user I know the developers of Kodi do not encourage piracy. They forbid the use of their name on any install that deviates from the defaults (sort of like the Firefox license) when offering a device for sale - you must fork. Plugins that make infringement easy aren't even allowed in the official repositories - all of those are in 3rd party repositories.
Kodi is a lot like a torrent or gnutella setup. Nothing wrong with it on it's own, in fact Window Media Center is one of the best closed source comparison products to come to mind, but it's an open source project without child safety locks, just like Linux and BSD are as a whole. The fact third party sellers about the product should not be used against the developers - ever.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
While action like this is good legally, I can almost guarantee that it won't change much. I see cunning fellas sell boxes that are benign, so do not flout the order.
What will happen is buyers being pointed to a website, from which a script to autoconfigure the box can be [freely] obtained.
I applaud the judge nevertheless..
I rarely watch television or any series any more and if I do, it's probably a recorded one. Software is either open source or paid for.
However, I do download stuff from time to time and I don't feel bad about it. Especially music. Musicians are currently petitioning for harsher laws in the EU. They think that if you create a song that sounds remotely like another song, it entitles them to a share of the proceeds. They even managed to copyright silence. Basically, musicians seem to think they're entitled to an annuity for their grandchildren because they made a single popular song. Well, not from my money they won't.
The more money they get, the more money they have for lawsuits. Not paying them is just sensible long-term strategy in the fight against copyright extensions.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)