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