Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Netflix, Amazon, Movie Studios Sue Over TickBox Streaming Device (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the first-of-its-kind dept.

Movies studios, Netflix, and Amazon have teamed up to file a lawsuit against a streaming media player called TickBox TV. The device in question runs Kodi on top of Android 6.0, and searches the internet for streams that it can make available to users without actually hosting any of the content itself. An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: The complaint (PDF), filed Friday, says the TickBox devices are nothing more than "tool[s] for mass infringement," which operate by grabbing pirated video streams from the Internet. The lawsuit was filed by Amazon and Netflix Studios, along with six big movie studios that make up the Motion Picture Association of America: Universal, Columbia, Disney, Paramount, 20th Century Fox, and Warner Bros.

"What TickBox actually sells is nothing less than illegal access to Plaintiffs' copyrighted content," write the plaintiffs' lawyers. "TickBox TV uses software to link TickBox's customers to infringing content on the Internet. When those customers use TickBox TV as Defendant intends and instructs, they have nearly instantaneous access to multiple sources that stream Plaintiffs' Copyrighted Works without authorization." The device's marketing materials let users know the box is meant to replace paid-for content, with "a wink and a nod," by predicting that prospective customers who currently pay for Amazon Video, Netflix, or Hulu will find that "you no longer need those subscriptions." The lawsuit shows that Amazon and Netflix, two Internet companies that are relatively new to the entertainment business, are more than willing to join together with movie studios to go after businesses that grab their content.

3 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. Caused by artificial limits on availability... by MikeDataLink · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Quit artificially limiting my access to media! Whether it's simply not making it available at all, or by forcing me to subscribe to 12 streaming services to get access to the content they are forcing the population back to piracy.

    I realize that while there are some major douches out there who would pirate a movie if it cost only a dime, there are many of us who would happily pay if you stopped screwing us over.

    --
    Mike @ The Geek Pub. Let's Make Stuff!
    1. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Holi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Funny, I remember hearing all the cries for a la carte programming on this very site. I believe at the time I warned to be careful what you wish for.

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    2. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Yes, pretty much. Copyright is a government-enacted, granted, and termed restriction of people's rights to ideas. You own the VHS plastic and rust that information is held on, but the data held in the rust is as "owned" by anyone as one "owns" the sound waves coming from a mouth, or anyone can own the light coming from the sun.

      If movies couldn't be made without copyright, fine. I guess movies wouldn't be business model. There is no inherent right for government or society to protect a business model. When it *is* done, it's entirely up for debate how and why it's done. The default state is no idea ownership.

      We're "owed" the content because ideas and data cannot inherently be "owned" at all. We decided to restrict ownership for entirely practical reasons, not reasons of inherent moral imperative. If the practicality of the reasons goes away or is reduced, it's entirely feasible to adjust the limitations. If the limitations begin to infringe on topics we consider *actual* 'moral' imperatives (like life, property, free speech, etc) to a degree that is unacceptable (subjective !) then it can enter the realm of a *detriment* to morality, but never can copyight itself enter the realm of *being* a moral imperative by itself, because it isn't that in any way.

      One of the subjective measure of the feasibility is precisely how willing people are to abide by it. If most people say it's dumb and don't abide by it, then it *is* dumb because there is no other moral imperative behind it's inception. It *Is* also possible that people who say it's dumb don't think it through, or will change their minds when all TV, movies, and music goes away, but maybe it won't. Who knows.