Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Tickbox Must Remove Pirate Streaming Add-ons From Sold Devices (torrentfreak.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the court-orders dept.

TickBox TV, the company behind a Kodi-powered streaming device, must release a new software updater that will remove copyright-infringing addons from previously shipped devices. A California federal court issued an updated injunction in the lawsuit that was filed by several major Hollywood studios, Amazon, and Netflix, which will stay in place while both parties fight out their legal battle. TorrentFreak reports: Last year, the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), an anti-piracy partnership between Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and more than two dozen other companies, filed a lawsuit against the Georgia-based company Tickbox TV, which sells Kodi-powered set-top boxes that stream a variety of popular media. ACE sees these devices as nothing more than pirate tools so the coalition asked the court for an injunction to prevent Tickbox from facilitating copyright infringement, demanding that it removes all pirate add-ons from previously sold devices. Last month, a California federal court issued an initial injunction, ordering Tickbox to keep pirate addons out of its box and halt all piracy-inducing advertisements going forward. In addition, the court directed both parties to come up with a proper solution for devices that were already sold.

The new injunction prevents Tickbox from linking to any "build," "theme," "app," or "addon" that can be indirectly used to transmit copyright-infringing material. Web browsers such as Internet Explorer, Google Chrome, Safari, and Firefox are specifically excluded. In addition, Tickbox must also release a new software updater that will remove any infringing software from previously sold devices. All tiles that link to copyright-infringing software from the box's home screen also have to be stripped. Going forward, only tiles to the Google Play Store or to Kodi within the Google Play Store are allowed. In addition, the agreement also allows ACE to report newly discovered infringing apps or addons to Tickbox, which the company will then have to remove within 24-hours, weekends excluded.

30 of 70 comments (clear)

  1. Fair enough by m0hawk · · Score: 1

    Fair enough.

    I wonder how many people will just reinstall the removed addons? I'm sure there is somebody already writing up a how-to just for this court ruling.

    1. Re:Fair enough by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows someone who knows how to do it.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  2. GPL issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First, this is incredibly draconian and a significant escalation of anti-piracy abuses. However, Kodi is GPL software, and would require modification to block some add-ons. The question is, will they release the modified source that blocks some types of add-ons?

    1. Re:GPL issues by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Unless they create an addon to police the addons

    2. Re: GPL issues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Correct, they're appointed morons.

    3. Re:GPL issues by GuB-42 · · Score: 2

      They can release the source, they can even publish it as a reversible patch and it won't do much.
      First thing: Kodi is GPLv2, it doesn't prevent "Tivoization", so the code can be made useless by preventing custom firmwares.
      Second, whatever they do, if it requires ROM hacks in order to re-enable blocked features, it stops being a plug-and-play experience. It means they lose much of their appeal compared to say, a Raspberry Pi.

  3. Easy workaround by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Just disconnect your box from the internet and you will not receive the updates.

    1. Re:Easy workaround by vux984 · · Score: 1

      your trolling right? or joking? :p you can't be serious.

    2. Re:Easy workaround by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      About as serious as most of the tards on this topic who think a company should have the right to sell software complete with links to infringing services. Sell it as a basic unit where someone has to do the legwork to add unauthorized streams? No problem. Sell it with unauthorized streams preinstalled? You have to be a fucking idiot to think you could get away with this, not to mention putting a spotlight on the unauthorized streams who want to stay below the radar.

  4. They actually advertised easy piracy as a feature by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    This people actually easy piracy as a feature of the device and included add-ons that are directly connected to websites with nothing but pirated videos.

    I'm surprised they are allowed to just remove the add-ons given that they actually did the legal damage to themselves.

  5. microsoft can't go app store only with anti trust by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    microsoft can't go app store only with anti trust issues and banning Linux is a big no go

  6. antitrust issues and region locking issues + ISP by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    antitrust issues and region locking issues + maybe even ISP issues. Say comcrap says no you can't have HBO GO you must use the Comcast app with an full video sub (min level locals or higher as we don't think the 1992 laws cover IP video) + Add on HBO.

  7. Fear Not Fellow NRA Member, Republicans, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    and other Mass Killers. This will soon die down - a week at the most - and we will return normalcy. We will move our lips during this time to calm the tree huggers but rest assured, YOUR GUNS ARE SAFE!

    Yours,
    The Inmates Running Congress, The White House, and The Supreme Court

  8. Re:How much money are they getting paid? by Aighearach · · Score: 2

    The real question is how much money they're being paid

    That is the question for sure! But it doesn't really matter how much. What matters is that they are in fact being paid by the open infringers. So they get this smackdown and have to play nice now, under supervision.

    The lesson is: Plausible deniability has to be plausible. Without it, you get an injunction.

  9. To be fair... by viperidaenz · · Score: 3, Informative

    Their website used to say this on the front page

    Question:
    What TV shows and movies can I see for free?
    Answer:
    You can see almost every movie and TV series ever made. You can even access movies and shows that are still on Demand and episodes of TV that were just aired. You will never pay to watch any of them.

    Enjoy watching complete seasons of almost every television series ever created, including those from the premium cable movie channels and subscription services.

    Relax with some popcorn and catch the latest hollywood blockbuster from the comfort of your own home without paying a rental fee. Also included - Sidetick.TV!

    Live stream over 50,000 live radio stations or access full albums from your favorite recording artist... finally cancel your spotify or satellite radio subscription saving hundred of dollars a year!

    Watch upcoming PPV Events like UFC, Boxing, and Wrestlemania in ultra high definition without paying a single penny!

    https://web.archive.org/web/20...

    1. Re:To be fair... by Godwin+O'Hitler · · Score: 1

      That's rather blatant isn't it. It's like erecting a sign at the end of the street saying houses number 5, 19, and 25 are unlocked and you can take anything you want from inside for free.

      --
      No, your children are not the special ones. Nor are your pets.
  10. Judges come from the upper class by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    e.g. folks who own property. So they're going to tend to side with property owners, and that includes Intellectual Property owners. The ruling seems punitive and too broad. VLC could fall under this ruling. This reads like the plantif got everything they wanted while the defendant got nothing. Also, they seem to have picked a small target who couldn't fight back. They did not, for example, go after Roku. Even though it's not terribly difficult to get stuff like Popcorn time running on it.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Judges come from the upper class by green1 · · Score: 1

      There's a reason these scumbags go after small defendants, they can't afford to put up a big defence, and once you've won a few of these you have a precedent that makes it hard for the big guys to resist even with their armies of lawyers.
      They're also careful to never go after the REALLY big guys because even though they might win with the precedents they've already set, they'd draw too much attention and the laws might get fixed. (Which is why Google hasn't been shut down due to all the piracy they enable, or Microsoft, or Apple, Law makers would have no choice then but to notice that the IP system is horribly broken)

    2. Re:Judges come from the upper class by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Upper class has nothing to do with it. Of course they are going to side with the property owner in a case of a device whose soul purpose for existing is to infringe on copyright of property. VLC would definitely fall under this ruling, but they don't do that. Even Kodi themselves don't do anything that runs afoul of this ruling which essentially requires companies not to officially sanction plugins that exist for the soul purpose of copyright infringement.

  11. Re:make an kkk vs nazi app and then go to court to by fafalone · · Score: 1

    Skokie seems somewhat dampened by the fact the ACLU now believes social justice supersedes constitutional rights.

  12. Re:Consumer Protection Laws say: "What?" by green1 · · Score: 2

    Many, many companies already remove paid for features without a court order and don't get in any trouble, so I doubt ones that have a court order are worried. (Sure Sony got in trouble, but it was pretty minor trouble, and they're in the definite minority actually losing anything at all)

    Long gone are the days when you can expect to have all the functionality you paid for in a product, or have any ownership rights at all after forking over your money. You get whatever the company feels like giving you, and that can change at ANY time. Don't like it? tough, you don't matter. (I mean "vote with your wallet" and go to the competition, where usually there is no competition, and if there is, they probably do exactly the same thing anyway)

  13. Re:What a wonderfully illegal order the judge give by green1 · · Score: 1

    To be fair, the other levels are no better, have you seen some of the rulings by the supreme court? Apparently they don't even know that the US has a constitution, let alone what it contains.

  14. the text of injunction... by 4wdloop · · Score: 2

    The text of the injunction

    https://www.scribd.com/documen...

    is an interested read, including multiple screen captures and the discussion that follows is fascinating, alleging that they may be responsible for copyright violation

    "In Fung, the Ninth Circuit analyzed Grokster and held that a defendant may be held liable for copyright infringement under Grokster ’s inducement theory where four elements are present: “(1) the distribution of a device or product [by the defendant], (2) acts of infringement [by third parties], (3) an object [of the defendant] of promoting [the device’s or product’s] use to infringe copyright, and (4) causation. Fung , 710 F.3d at 1032"

    The #3 above may get them in.

    --
    4wdloop
  15. "Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment", eh? by ToTheStars · · Score: 1

    So I take it this means that they're stopping the gratuitous sequels, reboots, and cookie-cutter blockbusters, right? ;)
    (I suppose I'd also accept it if they agreed to let us pirate works that are not Creative and Entertaining...)

  16. Equal protection of the laws by tepples · · Score: 1

    Skokie seems somewhat dampened by the fact the ACLU now believes social justice supersedes constitutional rights.

    In what way? Some aspects of social justice follow from the right to "equal protection" pursuant to the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

  17. Re: Consumer Protection Laws say: "What?" by jabuzz · · Score: 1

    Better make sure they don't effect any devices located in the UK as unauthorised removal of software from a device is a criminal offence over here under the computer misuse act.

  18. Really confused by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

    How is this any different from streaming from the web through my notebook to my Chromecast? This ruling to me seems absurd.

    1. Re:Really confused by WinstonWolfIT · · Score: 1

      Also, I'd think they'd prefer Tickbox which I'd assume can't VPN. Could be completely wrong here.

  19. No webbrowser by houghi · · Score: 1

    I hope they do not have a webbrowser that would link to a google search where you cab type in filetype:torrent because that would be bad.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  20. Re:Consumer Protection Laws say: "What?" by Athanasius · · Score: 1

    If only I had mod points today. I checked the comments precisely to make this point if no-one else already had.

    Sure, force this company to issue an update to not allow the installation of these plugins in future, but forcing removal of them now, when users (probably?) chose to install the plugins themselves is just an uncalled for, and I would hope illegal, intrusion.