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.
You can find someone selling these boxes in almost any low-rend strip mall around here, there's one up the street from me. The content is all ripped, and they sell a "service" consisting of lists of IP numbers for the latest streams. I'm surprised the networks didn't get on this ages ago. I'm not sure stopping the box sales will help, they'll have to stop sales of the content lists too.
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..
then I could have agreed with you. If the copy is not readable, then nobody can enjoy it.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Are you sure you meant to say that? Cause the flipside to that is a lot of people want to ban firearms - so your remark translates as ban all computing devices?
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
but yes, the purpose of these things seem to be to bring piracy to the masses who could never figure it out on their own.
Had someone at work brag about their box and all their content.
I think the key thing here isn't so much the box itself, it is the legitimacy of it. There are probably a big chunk of people who get these boxes and think it is completely legit. Now one can argue about the nuances of copyright infringement all day, however at best these things are dubiously legal. At least when someone does it that knows what they are doing, they more less understand what it is they are really doing and are getting. For Ma and Pa android box owner, they may not have the same background to really understand what is going on other than "Hey pretty pictures!"
So not only, as you say, someone has to pay for content, but there is also the issues on the box owner getting into legal trouble without being really aware (heading off a lot of lawsuits before they start), and from the content owner if something like this becomes legitimate use, it undermines their ability to do anything about it if they ignore it.
It's about as close to a victimless crime as you can get
So using a product someone took the time, energy and money to produce and not paying them isn't a crime? I'm presuming your employer doesn't pay you for the work you do for them.
Most things I pirate are things I wouldn't have spent any hard earned cash for.
So it's your hard earned cash but not the guy who's trying to make their own hard earned cash you're stealing from. Nice to know you're the classic example of a hypocrite.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
circumvent authorized ways of accessing content
Sounds like freedom.
To discourage and punish widescale commercial (for profit) copyright infringement. It's an abuse of the legal system to take those same laws made to combat commercial enterprises profiting to the tune of tens of thousands or even millions of dollars, and apply them to individuals violating copyright to watch a few movies for free. The penalty in the latter case badly needs to be revised to something like 3x the cost of the movie(s).
And why does this have a DMCA tag? The DMCA is a U.S. law, and this story is about a Canadian court decision.
Three words: Mickey Mouse Extension.
Ever since that one was signed into law, I've tried very hard to avoid ever paying for the items that benefited from this copyright. I pay for software (as needed). I never pay for music, movies or books unless I buy directly from the author to support him or her. Which is pretty rare.
Roll back copyright to something more reasonable and I'll start paying again.
Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
So you are happy fucking over an entire generation of authors or actors because of the work of some that came before?
I hope you are going without rather than pirating the content - if you are pirating, then my opinion of you is probably the same as your opinion of Disney.
US prosecutors(*AA sock puppets) regard any perceived harm to a US company as breaking US law, regardless of where it occurred. They also regard all of the Internet as an extension of US territory.
Wait until Libraries start receiving their takedown notices. Their movie/tv/videogame sections are getting pretty massive and distribute the material on a temporary basis to a large number of people who now don't have to pay for it.
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)
> So you are happy fucking over an entire generation of authors or actors because of the work of some that came before?
It's more like... all they have is derivative trash and I already have the originals. Whether I buy or or whether I pirate it, it really doesn't matter. The fact that the back catalog is quite large means that I don't have to ever pay attention to the new stuff.
There is nothing "wrong" or "illegal" with that either.
Your attitude is the highest pinnacle of the entitlement mentality. It's despicable.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
You are missing something important.
I do not buy when copyright owners make money. But I will routinely go to the pawn shop where they sell used DVDs for a buck each.
Same as pirating only legal (you DO pay for internet access right?).
_ _ _ Go for the eyes Boo! GO FOR THE EYES!
>So using a product someone took the time, energy and money to produce and not paying them isn't a crime?
I often use toilets at Tim Horton's without buying anything. If you're Canadian, you probably have too.
Somehow, nobody has charged me with anything, nor even suggested I was a criminal.
I was rather shocked to see a YouTuber I had respected (Darbin Orvar) do a video shilling for one of these boxes and posting an Amazon referral link in her comment section. Considering she used to work at Facebook I figured she would be intelligent enough to realize the "free movies" including such recent films as "Star Wars: The Force Awakens" were nothing more than illegal streaming sites with an RSS feed or similar feeding the poorly designed Android app on the box. Suckers born every minute, I guess.
-==- Buy a Mac and leave me alone!
I expect that these companies will just stop installing streaming addons but make the instructions for installing the addons readily available. In fact, they already are readily available.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
Rifles can tenderize the hell out of a side of beef. Just sayin.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
At what U.S. pawn shop can I buy a lawfully made DVD of Song of the South, Pinocchio and the Emperor of the Night, or Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea? If "nowhere", that's only because the law empowers copyright owners to act like the proverbial dog in the manger.
I hadn't gone to a movie in more than 15 years but wanted to see Star WarS on the big screen. 45 MINUTES of previews is not what I paid for. That said, piracy has hit the movie industry so hard they had yet another record year in revenue...
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
For one thing, Canada has the digital locks bill, which is the same thing. For another, how may refugees from the DMCA is Canada willing to absorb?
Judge Daniele Tremblay-Lamer's name makes a good pun in french: Judge Daniele "shake the sea"
...That said, piracy has hit the movie industry so hard they had yet another record year in revenue...
Good point.. And you could say the same with the banks.. the economy is in so much trouble that the bankls, again, had record profits...
Seems to me, something just DOESN'T add up here... really......
Oh no, people might stop making the shit that I don't consider worth paying for. Maybe they'll go do something fucking useful instead. ;)
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
It looks unlikely that he was having a pop at hammers, or even rifles. It is more likely that he was joking about an object with a fairly obvious purpose being marketed with a narrower purpose for the sake of having an angle.
Then you got a touch precious, thinking someone was taking your little rifle away or something.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
If nobody pays for it, they're going to stop making it. When they stop making it, what are you going to pirate?
That is not true. Distribution companies actively block content that does not come through them, and limits or stops content coming from alternate distribution channels. For example, Megaupload provided a very good alternative distribution network.
People should only pay for first viewing of any content. The replay of content you already paid for is no different than remembering it in detail. We should not have to pay to refresh our memory of what we already experienced and paid for. We should not charge humans based on their ability or inability to recall.
The distribution companies make sure that content expires before your memory of it does. Once content enters the mind, it should be a human right to remember it, whether in your mind or physically. The idea that anyone needs money from older content or that it is stealing from those who made it is hard to reconcile, when all those people are dead.
I present an alternative, where people pay for production prior to creation. For example, I would pay my fair share for crowd funding episodes of "Game of thrones". If the show obtained the amount they desired, then they could produce it, known that they were fairly paid for their labour. The end result could/should belong to the people and made available for free. The distribution could use the existing channels which now are largely used for pirating. This is just one idea of how a world without copyrights and distribution companies would work. I think it would be beautiful and no one would miss the death of distribution monsters and copyright lawsuits.
I think alternate forms of distribution have a huge potential to provide more money to all artists regardless of their connection with the few mega distribution companies which have a stranglehold on what appears in theatres, in your home and on your devices.