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.

93 of 135 comments (clear)

  1. What did they think was going to happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Diluted services start making it more expensive to legally stream content and people will go back to piracy.

    Netflix found the magic cost-to-benefit ratio

    1. Re:What did they think was going to happen? by Wootery · · Score: 2

      The old I'm morally justified in pirating, because I don't like the price-point.

      Nice.

    2. Re:What did they think was going to happen? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      Well it kind of is, because if your morality is based on something like doing harm, the key question becomes "would I be willing to pay for this to begin with?"

      If the answer is no, then it has no effect whether I pirate shows or not. I am not paying them any money and I am not costing them any money.

      If the answer is yes, then I am stealing the value of those shows by consuming them without paying. Of course this is assuming you assign value to intellectual property, which I do.

      The cheaper the service, the more unlikely that the first point applies. When the service becomes more expensive, the first point becomes believable.

      Explain why that isn't a valid moral argument?

    3. Re:What did they think was going to happen? by Big+Hairy+Ian · · Score: 1

      I bought a box just like that off of Amazon so are they going to sue themselves?

      --

      Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.

    4. Re:What did they think was going to happen? by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      ... if your morality is based on something like doing harm, the key question becomes "would I be willing to pay for this to begin with?"

      That is not the key question. Just think about it a bit—by that standard, if at any point you did not pay the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for any good then you would be "stealing" the difference. There could be no such thing as "consumer surplus". For that matter, there could be no luxury goods (such as entertainment) since every scrap of income would go toward absolute necessities—people are willing to pay whatever they must in order to live. In practice people routinely (i.e. almost always) obtain goods for less than the amount they would be willing to pay. This is natural and expected and does not constitute harm.

      One does not measure harm by simply comparing one's situation with what could have been if others made different choices. In particular, you are not harmed merely because others fail to take actions which might have benefitted you. You are harmed only when others take actions which make you materially worse off than you were before. Copyright infringement is neutral; you don't gain anything, but you don't lose anything either. (The same cannot be said for copyright enforcement, which does cause actual harm by making people worse off than they would have been in the absence of copyright, even if that meant the copyrighted material never existed in the first place.)

      Those who derive their income from copyright have a problem, and that problem is not "piracy". Their problem is that their income comes from doing something that no one actually needs them to do, namely distributing information. If they charged a reasonable price for their labor, or for access to never-before-published material, there would be no problem. People will pay for that so long as there is desire for new content. Content providers chose instead to inject themselves as unwanted gatekeepers and toll-collectors in the distribution chain, which has become less and less viable, and increasingly costly to society, as the capacity for distributing information widely and cheaply has become ubiquitous. It's time to abandon that failing model and go back to charging for the useful work of creating new content.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
    5. Re:What did they think was going to happen? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      The old I'm morally justified in pirating, because I don't like the price-point.

      Nice.

      Above a certain price point, sure, I would say it's morally justifiable. Actually, I think quite a few things are justifiable in the service of breaking the content industry's pushes towards where they clearly want to go in the streaming model. Consumer rights have been removed one by one by one because the content owners are legally allowed to throw technological barriers in the way, I'm not sure we have to 'play nice' by the rules when the rules have been stacked against your own interests.

      The market isn't going to, and can't fix this problem. The assumption that it could is based off of laughable theories still widely accepted in business schools, but it doesn't change the fact that most of these problems don't have a market solution.

    6. Re:What did they think was going to happen? by stdarg · · Score: 1

      if at any point you did not pay the maximum amount you would be willing to pay for any good then you would be "stealing" the difference

      No because the producer has consented to provide the good at a given price. I didn't say "how much would I be willing to pay" just "would I be willing to pay." What I meant was "Would I be willing to pay what is asked?" and omitted that because I didn't realize it would be misinterpreted.

      If you would pay for content in the absence of the content being available for free via piracy, then to me that's a different situation than if you wouldn't pay for it in the absence of piracy.

      people are willing to pay whatever they must in order to live

      There's also competition among producers, not sure what you're trying to get at here. I don't think you can reduce all of economics to a simple moral question, this is specifically in response to the person who implied a moral argument can't involve the price point.

      One does not measure harm by simply comparing one's situation with what could have been if others made different choices. In particular, you are not harmed merely because others fail to take actions which might have benefitted you.

      Not simply so, no, but it's definitely a component. You can be harmed by the choices made by others even if only through their failure to include you. Obvious example, I give everybody except you $10000000, making your money worthless through inflation. Is intellectual property like that? Morally speaking with respect to harm it is. It does harm a producer if the people who can afford to pay do not pay because of the availability of pirated content.

      To me, the balancing issue against this is that with the same logic there is a moral imperative for producers to make things available to consumers. If it's free to duplicate something that is valued by others, then you are essentially harming those people by withholding it. Now it becomes a choice whether to allow consumers to be immoral by not enforcing copyright as you suggested, or allow producers to be immoral by doing so.

    7. Re:What did they think was going to happen? by Wootery · · Score: 1

      Copyright infringement is neutral; you don't gain anything, but you don't lose anything either. (The same cannot be said for copyright enforcement, which does cause actual harm

      Way to deliberately ignore that copyright law has succeeded in making books/music/movies/software commercially viable, and the enormous benefits that brings to everyone in the first world.

      Their problem is that their income comes from doing something that no one actually needs them to do, namely distributing information. If they charged a reasonable price for their labor, or for access to never-before-published material, there would be no problem.

      I'm not seeing a practical alternative to copyright here.

      It's time to abandon that failing model and go back to charging for the useful work of creating new content.

      So cinemas shouldn't pay a dime to the movie-creators? It should all be done through patronage schemes?

      Don't be ridiculous.

  2. Lawsuit, publicity, free advertising by Bert64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd never heard of tickbox before, now the lawsuit is being reported in the media and drawing attention i expect their sales to go up.
    Eventually they will lose the case and go under, but not before the owners have run off with a decent profit.

    --
    http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
    1. Re:Lawsuit, publicity, free advertising by bogaboga · · Score: 1

      Eventually they will lose the case and go under, but not before the owners have run off with a decent profit.

      That's the point precisely, as long as a "quick buck" can be made.

      if I were them, I'd sell the box without any potentially "infringing" functionality;
      I'd also include any disclaimers I need to include so as to "insulate" myself;
      then point buyers to a site that has code to that makes the box work as intended.

      Next, profit!

    2. Re:Lawsuit, publicity, free advertising by el_smurfo · · Score: 1

      That's how most of the $30 android TV boxes work.

    3. Re:Lawsuit, publicity, free advertising by luther349 · · Score: 1

      never herd of them but it they sound pretty shady. plenty of free plugins do the same thing.

  3. Fork by datavirtue · · Score: 1

    There are already hacks/cracks/side-loads, whatever you want to call it, for Fire stick that do the same thing. They just made it easy for the masses. It won't be long before you can get an image and boot it to a small Linux box for free.

    --
    I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
  4. 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 sehlat · · Score: 2

      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.

      It's funny how things work. I know people who have the exact same attitude toward the Big 5 publishing companies.

    2. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by farble1670 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Quit artificially limiting my access to media!

      So true. By god, you are owed that media. It's your right as an American. Give me my content or, or give me death! I think that's how it went right?

    3. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      orcing me to subscribe to 12 streaming services to get access to the content

      So you would rather pay $150/month for ONE service that gets you the content you want?

      Because that's the whole cable model - sell you lots of content prepackaged and people hated it. They want the ability to pick and choose their content ("a la carte"). But the flip side of it is having to pick up and join many separate services to get the content you want.

      So either you want 12 services but the ability to finely pick what you want, or you one one big service you send one big check to every month to get the content.

      Anyhow, you can bet the Kodi guys are also behind it. Piracy boxes are the thorn to Kodi - when they break, angry customers flood the Kodi forums (and promptly get banned). Plus, it hurts Kodi's image as a kick ass media player because people are associating Kodi with piracy.

    4. 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.
    5. 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.

    6. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by sixsixtysix · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Copyright should include an availability clause. Artificial scarcity in a digital word has got to be one of the most anti-consumer things I can imagine. I'd love to lock Disney's board's children in the fucking vault. If it's not available, it should not protected. Media's value should also not be exempt from going down with the cost of reproduction. Infinite copies with such little overhead should mean drastic reductions in cost (75% seems like a good place to start, not to mention recompense for consumer rights lost like resale or lending), like nearly every other industry.
      Besides that, they've had 15 years to get their shit together and release globally, yet they continue their bullshit regioning, milking it to the last drop. What do they expect? I mean, if it is a global economy and all, shouldn't consumers be able to find the cheapest media like corporations find the cheapest labor?

      --
      ...
    7. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Motard · · Score: 1

      It's not a choice I need to make. Of course, I can, if I so desire. Or I can decide that I really don't need to watch Star Trek: The Search for More Revenue.

      It's mostly all a fucking waste of time anyway.

    8. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree! Same with the RIAA, and publishers. All are trying to cling to an outdated artificial scarcity business model that just won't fly any more. No, I do not feel entitled to get content without paying for it. I am just tired of all of the crap that the MPAA/RIAA/publishers are pushing to try to hide their extreme price gouging!

      There should be no reason for me to have to subscribe to more than two streaming services to have access to pretty much any movie or TV show ever made. And the whole regional BS has to stop! The whole rent seeking thing needs to go away too. A digital copy of a book, movie, TV show, or song should not be considered any different than the dead tree book. You should own that copy that you paid for with all of the same rights and responsibilities as you have with owning a book. The responsibility to not sell or give away copies. The right to read that book to another person or small private group, or have it read to you by another person (or device). The right to loan out or give away or destroy the book as you see fit without restrictions.

    9. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      People are so good at making content these days. Have you seen YouTube. Of course you have. The movie studios are competing with all that. It's absurd that they still have room to stand with how they do business.

    10. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by psycho12345 · · Score: 1

      And content providers have noticed and started subdividing things again in the streaming world (see CBS, HBO go, and now Disney).

    11. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Motard · · Score: 1

      I didn't mention a show.

    12. Re: Caused by artificial limits on availability... by easyTree · · Score: 1

      Mostly? That's generous :P

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    13. Re: Caused by artificial limits on availability... by easyTree · · Score: 2

      Daddy, will you treat me a bedtime story?

      I'm sorry Julie, the copyright cartels won't allow reproduction of works they have the rights to.

      --
      Requiem for the American Dream
    14. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Motard · · Score: 1

      We will decide what non-destructively means. (most certainly in our favor)

    15. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Motard · · Score: 1

      I love Youtube. But to say that movie studios are competing with it is silly. (even though I might often prefer the YT content),

    16. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then the constitution is stupid. The law was established exactly for the reason the GP specified. You don't own ideas once you've shared them. Artificial protections were put in place by force of law in order to artificially grant this protection.

    17. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Everything competes with everything else.

    18. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Wow! Great comment!

    19. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So true. By god, you are owed that media. It's your right as an American. Give me my content or, or give me death! I think that's how it went right?

      I know you're trying to be funny/sarcastic, but you're actually correct.

      Society in general benefits from access to media (books, stories, museums, etc).
      Studies have shown that being exposed to more media (and therefore more characters and differing viewpoints) increases empathy and creates a society where people can get along easier and are more willing to help each other.

      The point of copyright laws was to encourage people to create media for the public domain.
      In exchange for that public service, they were granted a LIMITED monopoly so the creator could get a benefit.

      Two hundred years ago, a 14 year copyright term seemed like enough time to distribute something using horses and boats.
      In this day and age you can instantly distribute worldwide with the push of a button but the current copyright length has increased to effectively infinity.

      The current copyright situation is an example of the rich few bribing politicians to rob from everyone. We are all harmed by this in hard to tell ways so that a relatively few people can become insanely wealthy.

    20. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Motard · · Score: 1

      As it should.

    21. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Motard · · Score: 1

      But that's not to say there's only one class of thing.

      Steven Spielberg and Cracked are not in the same league.

    22. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Motard · · Score: 1

      I think copyright was always longer than that, but in essence, you're right. It's for the original author.

      I think we can all agree that over the years the terms of copyright protection has been extended too far beyond this goal. This needs a serious looking at.

      But if we're to be totally honest here, we're not talking about Marx Brothers movies or Mickey Mouse shorts, are we? It's about new movies. Ones that no one would argue the copyright has expired on.

      The current copyright system is exactly the same as the old one. We just might need to fix the duration. But I don't see how that applies here.

    23. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Do you know why copyrights and patents were put in place? To allow people to make a profit before the majors simply copied their ideas.

      You DO own your ideas. At least for a period of time.

      Do you understand WHY they made it so you could profit from your ideas for a limited time? To promote the progress of science and the useful arts by the release of those works into the public domain. If the end goal wasn't for the works to become public domain they wouldn't have specified that the exclusive right is for a limited time.

      So yes, those works are owed to the general public after a limited time. Copyright has been extended so far that for practical purposes it never becomes public domain. It is unconstitutional, it is the wholesale theft of the public domain.

    24. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Motard · · Score: 1

      And it turns out they were wrong about alot of stuff. The constitution is hardly immutable nor the people that crafted it 'divine' in any way.

      That's why they made it amendable. And we've changed it according to their rules.

      "And in the process they established intellectual property rights."

      Yes, after much debate and disagreement.

      If something is adopted following debate or disagreement? Is that to say it is necessarily wrong?

      It should be noted that the people arguing for it were hardly the "small guys".

      Citation needed.

      There's nothing whatsoever about this being the reason for copyright in the constitution. You made that up.

      No, sorry, I didn't. Yes, it's true that the constitution does not spell out all of the debate and disagreement that would lead you to ignore the entire agreement, but there really are many more historical resources available to you if you'd like to learn more from this discussion,

    25. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Motard · · Score: 1

      It is true that the protections would be for a limited time. But that's not what we're talking about here, is it?

      Is TickBox serving up Marx Brothers movies? Three Stooges?

      C'Mon, man.

    26. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by SNRatio · · Score: 1

      I'll start with your checkbook, credit cards, drivers license, and that list of passwords in your desk drawer.

    27. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You DO own your ideas. At least for a period of time.

      https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#102

      (b) In no case does copyright protection for an original work of authorship extend to any idea, procedure, process, system, method of operation, concept, principle, or discovery, regardless of the form in which it is described, explained, illustrated, or embodied in such work.

      Additionally
      https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#106a

      (a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.-Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art-
      (1) shall have the right-
      (A) to claim authorship of that work      , and

      Claim authorship, not ownership, authorship.

      A copyright holder can claim they HAD the idea, they have no right in law to claim OWNERSHIP of an idea.

      Also of note
      https://www.copyright.gov/title17/92appa.html

      Sec. 113. (a) The Librarian of Congress (hereinafter referred to as the âoeLibrarÂianâ) shall establish and maintain in the Library of Congress a library to be known as the American Television and Radio Archives (hereinafter referred to as the âoeArchivesâ). The purpose of the Archives shall be to preserve a permanent record of the television and radio programs which are the heritage of the people of the United States and to provide access to such programs to historians and scholars without encouraging or causing copyright infringement.

      There is a cost to place a work under copyright protection, it is not free.
      That cost is after copyright expires, that work belongs to the people of the USA.

      So many copyright holders behaved criminally by trying to not make their payment for copyright protection that was delivered. They have stolen what belongs to the people of this country.

      You claimed elsewhere that we aren't talking about 100+ year old movies, but movies released today.
      Look back just a bit further and you will see how those copyright holders fucked this up for themselves.

      If you keep writing bad checks to me over and over, of course in the future I will stop accepting those checks.
      After every last existing studio has refused to make a single payment for their older copyrighted works, why would it be shocking that I wouldn't expect payment now, and why would it be surprising if I stop accepting their bad checks and affording them any protections any longer?

      Hell just look at DRM protections using encryption. That's no different than writing a check for your copyright protection with a huge bold "VOID" plastered over it. They not only intend to steal that work from the public it will belong to, but out right say to your face you will never get the payment because fuck you that's why.

      That is why current and new works are pirated. You people have a shit-ton of back payments to catch up on before we are going to care about you getting any copyright protection any longer.
      Settle up on your debts and perhaps we will talk about granting you a line of credit again to give you copyright protection and trust you will actually pay for it.

    28. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      Of books? The situations are not at all comparable. You don't have to subscribe to 5 different publishers' services to get books from each. You can go to their website for free, or to Amazon or B&N or Book Depository.

    29. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      It seems that people want one of the following:

      • - a single streaming service with a single monthly fee.
      • - multiple services that each charge a small amount per item

      People don't want multiple streaming services, of which only a small amount of content is consumed from each.

    30. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by farble1670 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, pretty much. Copyright is a government-enacted, granted, and termed restriction of people's rights to ideas.

      Yes, pretty much like rape laws are government-enacted restrictions on people's rights to have sex with whoever they want, whenever they want. Good job, you just described every law on the book.

      One of the subjective measure of the feasibility is precisely how willing people are to abide by it.

      If you don't pay for your content, you're a leach. You are leaching off of everyone else that's paying for it. If other people didn't pay for it, then it wouldn't exist, and you wouldn't be able to leach it in the first place.

      A great way to decide if an action is moral, or good for society. Imagine what it'd be like if everyone did what you are doing. I'd have to assume the OP likes the content and wants it to exist if he's taking the time to steal it.

      Who knows.

      I do. Common sense.

      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.

      If you don't think or care that content exists, then why are you even participating in this thread? You don't have a dog in this fight.

    31. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      It's even more silly that they're competing with YouTube, and losing!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    32. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      "You're acting like these movies are a loaf of bread and you're starving to death."

      I think you hit the nail on the head. This is precisely the case.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    33. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by datavirtue · · Score: 1

      $100 a month? What world are you living in? I know working class people who pay $140 or more just for "TV." They also have internet and Netflix bills on top of that. They would have Amazon Prime as well but they don't have enough money to buy enough shit from Amazon to justify the extra membership fee.

      --
      I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
    34. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Scroatzilla · · Score: 1

      "The point of copyright laws was to encourage people to create media for the public domain."

      No. Without a financial incentive to create, there would be nothing to add to the public domain. I sense that you are arguing from a "greed is bad" perspective, or an "everything should be free for everyone" perspective, which is essentially the antithesis of a civilized society.

      Do you do something important for the world? Do you work for completely altruistic reasons, rather than collecting a pay check?

      It seems that you are a consumer of creativity, rather than a creator. You should really go a little deeper in your research, because you seem to be alluding to "big media" examples (I would guess that you want Mickey Mouse to be in the public domain?), and ignoring "creating for a living" scenarios (e.g. creating to pay the rent vs. becoming mega-rich).

    35. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by LocalH · · Score: 2

      "I think copyright was always longer than that, but in essence, you're right. It's for the original author."

      As far as the US is concerned, the original copyright law gave 14 years with a single 14-year renewal.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      --
      FC Closer
    36. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "Good job, you just described every law on the book."

      No, not at al, and in fact exactly the opposite. 'Rape' would, by definition, infringe on another person's right to liberty. Rape laws define the demarcation of a conflict of rights, my right to perform actions and another's rights to be free from impinging actions (liberty). Yes, this is pretty much what laws do. However, notice that the "law" says nothing about defining the right of liberty to exist or the right of freedom to exist. These are taken to be 'inalienable' human rights, and the law is defining the boundries of conflicting rights.

      Copyright is nothing of the sort. It is *not* an inherent right, and is *entirely* defined by the government, exactly as a pure restriction on inherent rights and nothing more. It's purpose is a practical measure to promote action, exactly like tax-law tries to promote or encourage actions. The point is to separate it from actual, inherent rights since we seem to have alot of people that have it in their mind that "copyright" is itself a moral and righteous thing.

      "If you don't pay for your content, you're a leach."

      Do you pay for the air you breath? Do you pay for the sunlight giving you activated vitamin D? When you googled a question and found an answer to something, did you pay the person with expertise who posted the answer? Did you pay the person who held the door open for you? Did you pay a person who gave you directions in a city?

      You leech.

      "A great way to decide if an action is moral, or good for society. Imagine what it'd be like if everyone did what you are doing"

      Sort of, not entirely. Activities are 'immoral' because they impinge on individuals, not society as a whole. Murder is illegal because it impinges on an individual. It might also the case that a *certain type* of society would have a hard time functioning with murder being legal, but not in general. Societies have, after all, existed for long times with slavery and human sacrifice.

      This is different from constructs that are entirely designed for a purpose. If a tax is instituted on felling trees, because a government of a society establishes that people like trees and wants to discourage their felling, is it "immoral" to cut down a tree? What about cutting down a tree without paying the tax? If not paying the tax, is it the not abiding by the law that's immoral, or is it the felling of the tree? Or is it the concept of going against the 'social contract' ? What if it's a carbon tax? What about a tax on tea?
      Is the concept of a tax itself a moral imperative, or is it the idea of "living in a society which partially functions through taxes, and not paying your fair share" that holds the moral imperative? If taxes on a particular action or item are routinely or universally ignored, is the entire society then immoral because the idea of the tax stands on it's own as a moral imperative, or is it then that the tax is stupid because the society clearly doesn't really care?

      Were the founders of the US being immoral when they broke the social contract and didn't pay taxes and rebelled? If everyone always rebelled against their government, then clearly society wouldn't function and we would all have a reduced quality of life. Is (was) rebelling therefore immoral?

      The point is that, clearly "Imagine what it'd be like if everyone did what you are doing" plays some role in what is "good" or "just," since it may describe human nature and desires, but it is not by any means a sole determinant. In addition, there is a difference between a practical social construct and the moral imperatives that drive a society.

      "I do. Common sense."

      And yet music, plays, and text existed before copyright. Huh. Looks like e-mail still exists even though people don't pay for it. Churches still are constructed even though there is no charge to attend. Blender exists as a 3D application even though no one pays a thing for it. Do you pay a fee each time you watch a youtube video? No? And yet youtube still exists.

    37. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by mattventura · · Score: 1

      No, I’d rather pay a reasonable amount (like 20 or 30 a month) and get the everything service. Do you know what people do with the more specific services that they only watch one show from? They finish watching that show, cancel their subscription, and then sign up again when the next season starts. Having a single $20/month service I could subscribe to for the entire year instead of 6 different $20/month services that I subscribe to for 2 months at a time gives the content creators the same amount of revenue and is more convenient for me.

    38. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      My God, the stupidity of this particular argument is epic.

      If you want me to give up one of my rights -- the right to say what I want, copy what I want, all these natural rights that we used to take for granted, then you have to give me something in return. The entire purpose of copyright was to give a very limited time period of exclusivity, because that will enable more content to be created and released to the public domain. That was the entire purpose -- they felt copyright was the way to maximize the public domain. Otherwise, it's not morally justifiable to limit someone's rights just so someone else can create value and make money through that limitation.

      Somewhere along the line, a despicable notion gained traction, the idea of "intellectual property." That an idea or expression should be treated the same as a physical object, and that removal of the protection of that idea is akin to theft from the owner. That has shifted the balance of power far far away from where it belongs, the public domain, and towards the individuals and companies who have come to hold these ideas in perpetuity. I am not convinced anymore that the current administration of copyright is morally justified, or that the violation of copyright is morally suspect.

    39. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      And it turns out they were wrong about alot of stuff. The constitution is hardly immutable nor the people that crafted it 'divine' in any way.

      That's why they made it amendable. And we've changed it according to their rules.

      Modification of copyright law doesn't requite a constitutional amendment either. I think the Constitution is fine. It gives Congress the power to craft copyright laws, and Congress is where the real problem lies.

    40. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Total bullshit reasoning. If everyone did what one person did, the world wouldn’t work. Take a car accident on the highway. If everyone drives past it and does nothing, that’s bad. If everyone takes out their phone and calls the police, some 911 switchboard just got overloaded (and maybe more people crash due to using their phones) when one person calling would have sufficed. If everyone stops to check if everyone is okay, then suddenly the highway gets so clogged the ambulance can’t get there. Are the people who do nothing and drive past “leeches”? I guess you could technically claim that. But they’re not hurting anyone by doing that, just like how pirating something you otherwise wouldn’t have bought also doesn’t hurt anyone.

      That's a weird goofy justification for essentially "I can do this thing as long as not too many others do it, cause I'm special."

      There are a whole ton of bad comparisons in there as well that I shouldn't need to get into.

    41. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Neither do you

      Sure I do. My dog is calling out people that wrap their self-serving illegal activities in a moral argument.

    42. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Why exactly do you believe this?

      Common sense.

      But maybe you're right. The millions of people that are downloading GoT are doing it to better society.

    43. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Anyway, your reply indicates that you don't actually know why you believe that

      You're probably right. All I know is it bothers me when people lie to themselves.

      It's interesting that the way you define a behavior as "moral" is that it necessarily makes society better (if I understand you correctly).

      Do you like content? Movies, etc? I have to assume you do if you are commenting on this thread.

      Then yeah, not paying for it makes society worse. If you don't pay for it it won't exist. Couldn't get much more "common" sense than that. The only reason you can pirate the content and not feel an effect directly is because there are other people that ARE paying for it... paying for YOU to consume it.

    44. Re:Caused by artificial limits on availability... by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Actually, my interest in "mainstream" content has steadily decreased over the last two decades to roughly zero.

      That's nice, so you're mission is to destroy it's business model because ... you don't want other people to listen to it? Or what?

  5. Canada by thereitis · · Score: 2

    Since they aren't hosting any of the infringing content, isn't this still legal in Canada? ie. You can download but not upload content. That's what the blank CD/DVD media tax was supposed to address. Note: I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice.

    1. Re:Canada by sgrover · · Score: 1

      It's not that cut and dry. The downloading in this sense has not had a great case through the courts yet. So the legality is still a little murky around downloading. And it would make sense to me that if you are knowingly downloading content that is not legally available via other means - or even released yet, then you know you are breaking the law and shouldn't benefit from that gray area. However if you are downloading that show that aired on cable (that you pay for) that you missed because you were at work, then you are likely just time-shifting and would probably be fine by Canadian law. But don't take my advice - I'm not a lawyer either.

    2. Re: Canada by corychristison · · Score: 1

      As another commenter pointed out, it's a grey area as there hasn't been a definitive case through the courts yet.

      I feel the companies that are advertising and selling these preloaded boxes as replacements to cable ("for free!") should be illegal as they are profiting by directly selling the device to consumers.

      Streaming of the content should be legal, based on previous court cases (I can't cite them at the moment, on mobile and just heading out), where streaming was deemed "not downloading" as it does not store the media on the device itself.

      Personally, I see no problem with someone hobbling one of these devices together themself, for personal use, however. The boxes themselves should probably be levvied like portable media devices are (ipods, tablets, phones, etc), as I suspect they currently are not (please correct me if I am wrong).

    3. Re:Canada by luther349 · · Score: 1

      some of those plugs are just BitTorrent probably why you got the copyright notice. these boxes are normally not worth a dam anyways they prmake them for people to stupid to be able to install there own plugins and are often outdated point to dead repos.

    4. Re:Canada by coofercat · · Score: 1

      Not sure about Canada, but in the UK there's been a lot of 'clamping down' on this sort of thing (we have a media tax too, BTW). You can't actively assist in copyright infringement, and if the device is primarily used for copyright infringement, you can't sell it.

      Now, if they could come up with a box that mostly shows legal streams, but has some back-door way to get to the illegal ones, then they might have a better chance. The trouble is, average-joe doesn't want such a box - they want all the illegal stuff or else they're happy with their TV as it is.

      Back to this one in particular... what kind of hardware is that? I assume it's a rebadged something-or-other - any idea what? Also, the 'testimonials' sound pretty scary - people saying they spend $200/month on cable/subscriptions - that sounds like an awful lot. They must have really crappy TV there...

  6. Wonder if it can help me locate some Streisand by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    shows? https://www.tickboxtv.com/

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  7. After looking at the unit/site by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    this seems like going after a low hanging fruit to get the results you want and set a precedent.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    1. Re:After looking at the unit/site by Neuronwelder · · Score: 1

      Speaking of precedents: I hope they don't go after farts! If I make one that they copywrited, I'll be in trouble for sure! (The odds are against me!)

    2. Re:After looking at the unit/site by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure some of those fart apps copied their content from me! I need to call my lawyer and sue those bastichs.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  8. Can't stop the signal, Mal by sgrover · · Score: 1

    The write up states that the system scans the internet to find feeds. So the content producers go after the people who might scan for those feeds? Why not go after the people who are providing the feeds in the first place? Stop the signal at the source, not at the receivers... But that would mean the music industry must sue themselves because they have been caught seeding content to collect infos on the pirates... What an odd world we have created... :)

    1. Re:Can't stop the signal, Mal by Motard · · Score: 1

      We've already been through this many times for many years. This sort of thing is hardly new. There are no novel legal arguments that may succeed.

  9. Re:Not technically illegal by Motard · · Score: 1

    How old are you?

  10. Re:What else are the users supposed to do? by Motard · · Score: 1

    How does anyone *need* ways "to more easily watch the shows"? It's not like we're talking food or medicine here. It's stupid-ass sitcoms and comic book movies.

  11. Heads-up by easyTree · · Score: 1

    TickBox devices are nothing more than "tool[s] for mass infringement," which operate by grabbing pirated video streams from the Internet

    Thanks for drawing our attention to this product in such a kind display of altruism.

    It would have been even more considerate if your 'complaint' contained a 'Where to buy' section.

    Best regards,
    B Streisand.

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
  12. Re:What else are the users supposed to do? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's a sad commentary, but a lot of people don't do anything interesting all day. You go to work, put in a day, you come back. Even friends don't want to hear about that part of your life in great detail. It doesn't make a conversation. A big reason why entertainment (sports, tv shows, movies, music, et. al) is so popular is because it is fun to talk about it. Entertainment is so much more than sitting in front of the boob tube and zoning out. It has a relevant social context as well. It makes you part of something collective to have a conversation about, whether meaningful or not.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  13. Re: I would prefer by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Prefer it to what?

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
  14. Re:What else are the users supposed to do? by Motard · · Score: 1

    Maybe it's a sad commentary, but a lot of people don't do anything interesting all day.

    You're right. And using their free time to watch TV doesn't help.

    And whining about it not being free is even more pathetic.

  15. Said this since cable and sat were king by jenningsthecat · · Score: 1

    If you don't want me to watch it or listen to it, don't make it available on the wires coming into my house. Once it's on my premises, I consider it to be fair game for decoding, cracking, spoofing, or any other means of making use of the signal you freely gave me.

    --
    'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
    1. Re:Said this since cable and sat were king by Motard · · Score: 1

      Freely? How did you get to the Freely part?

    2. Re:Said this since cable and sat were king by Motard · · Score: 1

      Or 'gave', for that matter.

  16. Tickbox by youngone · · Score: 3, Informative

    First impressions:
    There is a typo on the homepage. (Turn you TV into a content filled home theatre system enjoying thousands of ...). Seriously?
    It won't tell me how much the thing costs until I enter my email address, which makes me suspicious. Also I need to act fast, as the 40% discount won't last long, which just sounds like one of those late night shopping channel hucksters.
    Apart from that, it looks like any one of hundreds of cheap Chinese Kodi boxes I can buy from Aliexpress or Banggood.
    I actually built myself something similar for about $60 using an old Atom powered Acer box I bought second hand. It runs LibreElec and works pretty well.

    1. Re:Tickbox by luther349 · · Score: 1

      your not there market. they want those clueless on how to customize kodi.

  17. Re:commentsubject by Motard · · Score: 1

    > The device in question searches the internet
    So does google.

    You do know that the law doesn't just cut shit off in the middle like you just did, don't you? You may think it does, but that only means about as much as your post.

  18. Re:Take your copyright law.. by Motard · · Score: 1

    To think this might be understandable. To take the time to type it...? Hilarious.

  19. Re:Take your copyright law.. by luther349 · · Score: 1

    cheers.

  20. Re:Crazy by Motard · · Score: 1

    Do you really think that if they do lose, that there will be any new movies, er, content?

  21. Re:I would prefer by RoccamOccam · · Score: 1
    You and Tom Sawyer.

    "Tom's heart ached to be free, or else to have something of interest to do to pass the dreary time. His hand wandered into his pocket and his face lit up with a glow of gratitude that was prayer, though he did not know it. Then furtively the percussion–cap box came out. He released the tick and put him on the long flat desk. The creature probably glowed with a gratitude that amounted to prayer, too, at this moment, but it was premature: for when he started thankfully to travel off, Tom turned him aside with a pin and made him take a new direction."

  22. Re:Crazy by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Of course there will still be new movies! There _are_ other business models upon which movie makers can profit. This clinging to copyright is sheer greed, brought to us all by the same people responsible for the theft known as "Hollywood Accounting". They've fought nearly every technological advance, and lost, and the world is a better place for it. They tried to kill the player piano, AM radio, the cassette tape, and the VCR, among others. Now, 25 years into this revolution, they're still trying to figure out how to lock down or shut down the Internet, turn the clock back to the 1980s, but only for us, not for themselves. They happily use the fruits of technology to reduce their costs, while hypocritically still trying to charge us prices based on the wishful thinking that there haven't been any advances.

    Take a moment to appreciate just how much copyright costs us all. We should have digital public libraries by now, which never run out of copies, can actually stay current instead of never having anything newer than 3 years old, are totally searchable, and which do not require lots of travel to utilize. Surf to the Library of Congress website, and download anything they have, any time, and don't worry about returning it. No more late fines. The content in an entire wall of books can fit on one hard drive. All that is huge, huge savings and far better and more usability, but thanks to copyright, we can't have it.

    Instead, research we financed is locked behind the paywalls of dozens of academic publishers. Those scumbags charge $30 for a 10 page article, and pass along precisely zero of that to the researchers who actually produced the content they've locked away.

    Keep copyright the way it is? Maybe even strengthen it? Might as well ask that we stick with horses and never upgrade to the automobile.

    --
    Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  23. File a lawsuit? Idiots. Buy one! by BobC · · Score: 1

    The best way to put TickBox out of business is to buy their product, then shut down every stream they find. TickBox is doing the studio's work FOR THEM, finding infringing content with no effort from the studios at all.

    Really. Only a lawyer would pursue this path. An executive with half a brain would simply starve TickBox of content.

  24. Re:A car can take you to the crackhouse. by Wootery · · Score: 1

    A car isn't built with the intention of being used for crimes.

  25. Re:What else are the users supposed to do? by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Using free time to watch TV doesn't help what?

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  26. stupid lawsuit - product not unique at all by flappinbooger · · Score: 1

    There are several of these ready-made android based Kodi stream boxes out there. In fact, you can turn a Pi 3 into a kodi box in about 20 minutes. The key is finding the right plugins for kodi and those are changing all the time.

    In fact, you can put Kodi and all the plugins on linux, windows, android, really any platform.

    Kodi is just a multimedia juke box platform for the local machine and your LAN, the internet streaming stuff is all by plugin.

    This lawsuit will widely publicize the stream box phenomenon and only serve to hurt the content creators more. And make the lawyers rich. THAT'S IT.

    --
    Flappinbooger isn't my real name
  27. Location of Contraband by unixcorn · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight. Content providers want to sue TickBox for creating a device that roots out contraband. Seems to me that content providers would be buying a TickBox themselves so they could more easily find the infringing content and then issue take-down orders.

  28. Grammer ... person alert - "cut-and-dried" not dry by beer_maker · · Score: 1

    Here is a perfectly cromulent explanation of what the expression means, and where it came from: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/34793/what-is-the-origin-of-the-phrase-cut-and-dried

    The use of past tense is important to the explanation in that 'dried' implies completion where 'dry' does not.

    --
    Hmmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
  29. Re:A car can take you to the crackhouse. by Wootery · · Score: 1

    I don't think your comparison works. When I see someone in a fancy car, I think There's someone who wants to show off how much money the have, but I don't assume they're necessarily planning on speeding.

    There's also an engineering aspect here: if you want to make a car that can comfortable drive at 70mph on a motorway, you'll certainly want its maximum speed to be somewhere north of 70.

    I agree that our current essentially-indefinite copyrights are a perversion of what copyright should be (and originally was) about.