Netflix, Amazon, and Major Studios Try To Shut Down $20-Per-Month TV Service (arstechnica.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Netflix, Amazon, and the major film studios have once again joined forces to sue the maker of a TV service and hardware device, alleging that the products are designed to illegally stream copyrighted videos. The lawsuit was filed against the company behind Set TV, which sells a $20-per-month TV service with more than 500 channels.

"Defendants market and sell subscriptions to 'Setvnow,' a software application that Defendants urge their customers to use as a tool for the mass infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures and television shows," the complaint says. Besides Netflix and Amazon, the plaintiffs are Columbia Pictures, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros. The complaint was filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The companies are asking for permanent injunctions to prevent further distribution of Set TV software and devices, the impoundment of Set TV devices, and for damages including the defendants' profits.

Comments

Sounds good.

[peetm]

Can't see a problem.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Allow me to point it out to you, then. When you stop paying the content creators for their content, they will stop making it. This is why we can't have nice content.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if that were a problem, stealing content does nothing to fix it. Try again.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

You (meaning Americans) can't have nice content because:
- Your commercial model for television doesn't favour making decent TV
- Your education system is so crap that most people don't appreciate any sort of intelligence on their TV sets

The likes of Netflix and Amazon somewhat buck this trend because they work globally, and their business model requires they have some "wow factor" to get people to try their services, so have to have some quality content to do so.

Here in the UK, the BBC (with all its faults) provides a "free" service which at any time of day is pretty decent quality. It's mostly intelligent, well produced content with some sort of positive benefit to it (ie. not 'race to the bottom' game shows and reality TV). This forces other channels to have some semblance of quality, which is how come we've got a small number of good quality broadcasters (versus vast swathes of absolute shit that other countries endure).

Back on topic - this thing is yet another 'free streams' software/hardware solution like so many others. As much as I dislike most of "big media", they've got a point on this one, and will most likely prevail.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Free, appart from the money you have to pay for it, sure.

Re:Sounds good.

[Computershack]

£3.7Bn is raised through the UK TV license. The BBC have a commercial arm that raises another £1.3Bn through licensing shows to other countries and selling merchandise such as box sets.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

The BBC also "spends" over 40% of the UK TV tax on advertising, despite not having to compete. The BBC sent about 450 people for a month long 5* stay in Brazil during the Olympics, despite not being the broadcaster cover the events. The BBC accepts hundreds of millions from the EU, despite being a UK broadcaster with the remit to provide services to the UK which commercial broadcasters would not.

It's time the TV tax was killed, and the BBC learnt to live beyond it's self-indulgent PC-obsessed unreality world. Netflix-like iplayer subscriptions will bring in plenty of income from around the world.

Re: Sounds good.

[c6gunner]

You (meaning Americans) can't have nice content

A billion+ people around the world, in 100+ countries, would beg to disagree.

But hey, the important thing here is that you get to feel superior to those ignorant rednecks and show the world how cultured and refined you are. Who cares what the help thinks, as long as they bring the tea and biscuits when you ring your bell.

Re:Sounds good.

[BlueStrat]

Even if that were a problem, stealing content does nothing to fix it. Try again.

Wrong.

Stealing their content and distributing it for free, and any other means of damaging them, their profits, and their systems of control until they go bankrupt is the only way things will ever get better.

Burn it down.

The legal and political systems have been suborned by their lobbying and outright bribery so there is no relief possible by legal means.

That just leaves destroying them in the most efficient means possible. Kill their ability to sustain their business. Only once their profits have been destroyed and their money can no longer can buy them legal/political protection can justice be served.

Strat

Re:Sounds good.

[InvalidsYnc]

Stealing their content and distributing it for free, and any other means of damaging them, their profits, and their systems of control until they go bankrupt is the only way things will ever get better.

So, if we keep raiding your bank account, that will make things better for you? Sounds like a good plan.

According to your plan above ALL content makers should be bankrupt, so we actually will only have the crap that someone makes for their YouTube channel, but only if they aren't making TOO much profit on it, at that point then their stuff should be stolen and distributed in such a way as to not make them any money.

Totally sounds reasonable.

You do realize, that there is no better, EVER, if there are no content makers, and nobody wants to be one because there is no motivation to do so, so congrats, you've destroyed an industry. What's next?

Re:Sounds good.

[Riceballsan]

Piracy numbers are still a means to judge what content people watch. If people are pirating mindless drivel, it still encourages companies to make more mindless drivel in the hopes that they will eventually shut down those particular pirate networks (or people will start using the services that do pay them more often). You want to vote against crap you hate... don't watch it, don't distribute it, and pay for what you wish to see more of.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Return copyright to its original 14-year term and use it as intended IN THE CONSTITUTION - to give creators a brief window to profit before the content GOES TO THE PUBLIC. Disney and its ilk have been robbing the public domain for years. Kill the beast, and let the chips fall where they may.

Re:Sounds good.

[burtosis]

You read it wrong. Stealing from his bank account will allow the people he grifted to regain thier loss easier.

Re:Sounds good.

[EvilSS]

Considering the massive popularity of reality TV in the UK wouldn't be throwing stones there mate.

Re:Sounds good.

[Anonymous Coward]

Except for musicians. No one has paid musicians correctly for decades and the music keeps flowing.

And Poets. Poets get nothing no matter how you slice it.

Oh, and most script writers.

And a lot of authors. They hardly ever get paid what they're worth.

Comet o think of it the only people who do get paid are producers of television and movies. Strange.

Re:Sounds good.

[ConceptJunkie]

Look, I'm sorry for you that Battlestar Galactica ended, but the TV industry is already undergoing a revolution and there is more and more long-tail content available than ever before. We don't need to "burn it all down" to make things better.

Besides, "burn it all down" is never been a viable plan, because it completely ignore what happens next. Show me your plan for how to make things better (whether or not it's all burned down first) and I'll take you more seriously.

Maybe you should try reading some books instead. There's a lot more variety to be found in the printed media than on television.

Re:Sounds good.

[ConceptJunkie]

Now _that_ (real copyright reform) is a real plan. "Burn it all down" is just a temper tantrum.

Re:Sounds good.

[AlanBDee]

In a system with only commercial advert-driven content, they'd all be free to conspire together to lower production quality to the bare minimum level needed, below which consumers merely turn the TV off in disgust and do something else.

You don't know what you're talking about. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to watch the History channel so that I can catch on my the latest reality TV show. If I don't hurry I'll miss the 3 minute window between advertisements and I'll never know what Kim Kardasian had for breakfast.

Re:Sounds good.

[ConceptJunkie]

The BBC really isn't any "freer" than American TV. It just has a different business model that has the government involved.

Sure, the Beeb produces a lot of great material and I watch a lot of it (either through Amazon Prime Video or by buying DVDs).

To me, the BBC really isn't any different than any other content provider. They make some great stuff, and I pay for what I like. But it seems to me that need to appeal to as wide an audience as possible is still there, no less than it is for American TV. If people didn't watch what the BBC puts out, then it would want to change. Maybe the British have better taste than Americans, but I don't think you can pretend there's some sort of moral victory because the BBC is publicly funded.

Re: Sounds good.

[ConceptJunkie]

Can we please stop trolling the British? Any society that produces "Red Dwarf" and "Jeeves and Wooster" (just to name a few) can't be all bad!

Just as any society that produces "MST3K" and "The Simpsons" (seasons 1 - 8) can't be all bad.

Re:Sounds good.

[Oligonicella]

Reread what you quoted and your first sentence in response. If you can't clearly see the self-refutation, then there's no point in discussing things with you.

Re:Sounds good.

[Oligonicella]

Five misconceptions in a row, nice.

Re:Sounds good.

[unrtst]

One path (or aspect) to that would be to disrupt their influence on the legal system and laws (ex. political contributions and lobbyists). "Burn it all down" would achieve that, which would aid in passing copyright reform. I'm not claiming it's right, or the best way, etc, but I think it has more impact than simply telling this echo chamber that we need copyright reform :-)

Re:Sounds good.

[c120plus]

This is true, and you can experience it by comparing US broadcast TV against European commercial broadcasters. While they may not conspire, the US stations are basically unwatchable after you have been exposed to European channels.

Re:Sounds good.

[squiggleslash]

The point isn't the cost to produce content for the BBC, it's that BBC provides content of a standardized quality that's not beholden to advertising.

HBO and Amazon Prime do much the same thing.

Re:Sounds good.

[psmoot]

We don't have nice content, and we didn't have before this 'Set tv' thing. Try again?

Really? I don't watch much cable or OTA but I watch a lot of YouTube, Netflix and Amazon. We're living in the golden age of video content, at least through streaming distribution.

If you can't find nice content, you must have much higher standards than I do. I'd love to know what you think nice content would be and how it's better than the best available today.

Re:Sounds good.

[Srin Tuar]

Lets make this is a fair comparison:

> So, if we keep raiding your bank account, that will make things better for you? Sounds like a good plan.

So long as when you are done raiding the same amount is left in the account as before.

Copyright is the same way: "copies" are made, originals are not damaged or removed.

Re:Sounds good.

[psmoot]

The likes of Netflix and Amazon somewhat buck this trend because they work globally, and their business model requires they have some "wow factor" to get people to try their services, so have to have some quality content to do so.

"Somewhat"?!? They're blowing up the entire industry! As a consumer, this is fantastic. The competition for my attention (instigated by Netflix, Amazon, HBO, and others) is forcing all the studios to up their games. Yay free market! Yay no legal barriers to entry!

Now back to The Expanse...

Re:Sounds good.

[farble1670]

Stealing their content and distributing it for free, and any other means of damaging them, their profits, and their systems of control until they go bankrupt is the only way things will ever get better.

Translation: I want the content, but I don't want to pay for it. Let me use this "crusader against the tyranny" excuse to justify my actions to friends, family, and to delude myself as well.

Not sure where you hail from, but most Western societies have evolved past the "take as much shit as I can" way of thinking about the world.

Re:Sounds good.

[Kielistic]

Or, hopefully, they'll start selling the content in a way the consumers actually want.

Re:Sounds good.

[AutodidactLabrat]

Copyright will not revert, there is too much Capital invested by too many Capitalists (you know, the actual rulers)

Re:Sounds good.

[duane_robertson]

> You do realize, that there is no better, EVER, if there are no content makers, and nobody wants to be one because there is no motivation to do so, so congrats, you've destroyed an industry. What's next?

Hate to break it to you, kid, but there has always been, and will always be, content. It's only in the past century that content was overly monetized and turned into an (arguably criminal) enterprise making billions for a few wealthy individuals and pennies for most creators.

People have always made music, though it wasn't as lucrative for a few lucky individuals as it is now, and although the film industry was born at a bad time, people will continue to make films. If you honestly think that any of the hollywood blockbusters lately are better than something a film student could come up with, let me suggest that you're giving special effects too much weight.

Re:Sounds good.

[Lord Kano]

Agreed.

Re:Sounds good.

[farble1670]

A good number of the entities who really have power in your "Western society" are even thought to be obligated to "take as much shit as I can", or be thought of as betraying their shareholders.

Sorry, Netflix has power in Western society? Purveyors of knock-off movies and 2nd rate TV series?

Netflix, etc. is not a requirement for health, or even happiness. You can just not watch it. You can read a book. Netflix can't take my shit. I either give it to them because I think it's a good value, or I don't and keep my money. It's not complicated.

Re:Sounds good.

[BlueStrat]

Now _that_ (real copyright reform) is a real plan. "Burn it all down" is just a temper tantrum.

"Real copyright reform" is not going to happen as long as the copyright cartels have nearly unlimited funds to bribe and pressure politicians, judges, and bureaucrats around the world with.

Strat

Re:Sounds good.

[david_thornley]

Just how do you like your art?

People will keep making and playing music. How do you want to get it? Sheet music for your piano? YouTube videos with mostly decent production values? Going to concerts? If you want well-produced audio files or something like that, there's a lot of work involved that needs to be paid for.

Similarly, if you like writing fiction, it's fun. Rewriting is much less fun. If you want a polished novel, there needs to be an editor to work with the author on revisions, probably until the author is temporarily sick of the story. I'm a regular participant in National Novel Writing Month. If you want stuff that people just wrote without trying to make it as readable as possible, I can send you some of my stuff. (It could be worse, honest. My wife said that she didn't notice amateurish writing in the second half of "Heinrich von Sturm and the Russian Underground of Science", and that the novel was actually readable.)

Basically, good music and good books and good movies (your definition of "good" may be different from mine) are going to require a fair chunk of money to produce. Even in the least technical of these, fiction, there's a lot of non-creative work that goes into it.

Slashvertisement?

[cascadingstylesheet]

Gotta check this out, lol

Re:Slashvertisement?

[Anonymous Coward]

My reaction exactly. "It's so good they have to shut them down in court?! Where do I sign?"

I could get it all for twenty bucks a month, and drop my Netflix and Amazon Prime subscriptions. Well, I guess I'd keep the Prime for the shipping. And Netflix is less then $20. And not about to get shut down by the courts.

OK, never mind.

I Won't Respect Unconsitutional Laws

[Anonymous Coward]

When the copyright law in the USA starts respecting the Constitution, I'll start respecting copyright law. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, content companies are the bad guys and pirates are the good guys.

Re:I Won't Respect Unconsitutional Laws

[HiThere]

The "content companies" being the bad guys doesn't make the pirates the good guys. AFAIKT they're nearly neutral. If their actions harmed the MPAA or the RIAA, then I might consider them good guys.

Re: I Won't Respect Unconsitutional Laws

[psmoot]

Except, sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case for copyright. What with retroactive extensions of copyright, no published works will enter the public domain in 2018. On January 1, 2019, some works from 1923 will become public domain, assuming a well known media conglomerate with a rodent mascot doesn't buy another extension.

I understand why the House of the Mouse wants to protect their holdings. I understand (but despise) how Congress might go along with this. I really can't understand how The Supremes can reconcile the incentives intended by the Constitution with the idea of retroactively protecting works which are already published. Extending copyright by (essentially) a year every year doesn't sound like much of a "limited duration" to me.

Re:I Won't Respect Unconsitutional Laws

[farble1670]

When the copyright law in the USA starts respecting the Constitution, I'll start respecting copyright law. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, content companies are the bad guys and pirates are the good guys.

Interesting how your moral high ground happens to allow you to take all the free shit you want. Convenient!

Re: I Won't Respect Unconsitutional Laws

[klossner]

Copyright extensions in the U.S. seem to be finished.

Re: I Won't Respect Unconsitutional Laws

[david_thornley]

In capitalist countries, the government doesn't limit the amount artists can make. J.K. Rowling became a billionaire.

Always winning!

[AndyKron]

Cool! I'm saving $20/mo by not getting it in the first place. Always winning!

Re:Always winning!

[houghi]

I saved 2EUR per day by running after the bus, till somebody explained to me that was stupid. Now I run after taxis and save a LOT more.

Re:Always winning!

[asylumx]

This was immediately a whoosh for me, thinking "well that makes sense, taxis will take a more direct route than buses."

If obly

[bobstreo]

there was some way that could provide access to all of the 80+ years of television that is already around. Tnere is a lot of "old" television that has no presence on either Netflix or Amazon.

I mean. next they will be going after people accessing broadcast television with an antenna....

Re:If obly

[Mashiki]

Yeah but just think what would happen, in less then a week progressives(aka regressives) would be screaming about how all those old shows are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. There would be whining and more screeching. Then the people with connections to media would start pushing the narrative that these companies support said sexism/racism/homophobia/etc, and you'd see the progressive-fringe press start pumping out stories. It would be amplified by more progressive sites.

Then mainstream media would then start publishing stories about "how there's a huge public backlash" against these old shows. Then they'd simply start pulling shows that were "problematic" "toxic" or "gross" but that wouldn't be good enough, and they'd likely fold and shut the entire thing down and you'd be back to where we are now.

Re:If obly

[Mashiki]

And then the "alternative" media

But here's the funny thing, I can look at one and chuckle over the crazy. At the other, I can see the media lining up to defend it and the politicians and media personalities lining up to preach and tell everyone "why removing this stuff is a good idea." The latter has happened repeatedly over the last 5 years.

Re:If obly

[AmiMoJo]

I guess you missed the calm, considered and insightful debate around shows like The Simpsons (particularly Apu), Friends and Saved by the Bell. Or the thoughtful re-examining of old movies like the 60s/70s James Bond stuff.

This appears to be yet more fake outrage. Unfortunately posting outrage videos about fake outrage on YouTube is quite popular, but if you ignore those there are some quite thoughtful pieces on this subject.

Moviebob on Apu: https://youtu.be/NGMnnrw70lA
Lindsay Ellis on Transformers: https://youtu.be/tKyrUMUervU
Innuendo Studios on Monkey Island (the third part about Marley in the sequels in particular): https://youtu.be/IJcJevvWGP8
Folding Ideas on Fight Club: https://youtu.be/Td88z08a_4c

Note how none of them are screaming, whining or screeching.

Re:If obly

[UnknowingFool]

I mean. next they will be going after people accessing broadcast television with an antenna....

Are you equating someone pirating and rebroadcasting content illegally with someone legally receiving broadcast TV programming? Because that's a false equivalence.

Re:If obly

[mlw4428]

> while apparently being supportive of the progressive agenda. It's almost like you're living in a bubble and are out-of-touch.

That was your first mistake. I just hate conservative ideology. I want to be left alone.

> progressives attempt to control a persons life

Like gay marraige, birth control, where mosques can be built, what's allowable on TV or movies, violence in video games, recreational use of drugs, various levels of "obscenity" censorship laws, anti-porn stances - yeah the conservative element is SO TOTALLY open and FREE. You're retarded. You're a retarded motherfucker. We're done here.

Re:If obly

[Powercntrl]

Yeah but just think what would happen, in less then a week progressives(aka regressives) would be screaming about how all those old shows are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.

No business in their right mind gives a rat's ass about what bleeding heart SJWs whine about on Twitter. Social media is a toxic cesspool in general, and it's best to simply pretend it doesn't exist.

Netflix's selection sucks because they're blowing their wad on "original" content. When you just put shit on your streaming service and don't bother to get the proper licenses from the rights-holders, you get sued (see TFA).

Re:If obly

[Rakarra]

Like gay marraige, birth control, where mosques can be built, what's allowable on TV or movies, violence in video games, recreational use of drugs, various levels of "obscenity" censorship laws, anti-porn stances - yeah the conservative element is SO TOTALLY open and FREE. You're retarded. You're a retarded motherfucker. We're done here.

I'd say there's a big difference between Republicans and libertarians (small l). Libertarians have a slightly different basket of crazy, but I would say the Republican ideology is less "freedom" and more "things should just be the way they used to be. And that includes not making things more free than they used to be."

Re:If obly

[Rakarra]

Netflix's selection sucks because they're blowing their wad on "original" content.

Netflix is blowing their wad on original content because the content companies want Netflix to double their rates so that people pay $6-10 per movie stream, on top of what Netflix needs to charge for overhead. They also want to charge enormous amounts of money for streaming just about anything, which is why Netflix's back catalog for streaming sucks (and is getting smaller). In a couple years, Disney will pull ALL content no matter the price so they can bolster THEIR proprietary service.

They couldn't pull this crap with DVDs because they didn't have the power to, thus Netflix was known for their excellent DVD selection. But the content companies have full power over streaming and can dictate the terms they want, and that leads to a lot more market segregation, especially with the content companies trying to give exclusive access to their own distribution channels. They don't want an independent distributor, in the age of the Internet, they want to do all the distribution themselves. Screws over the consumers, but the content companies do not have a "customer is always right" mindset.

Re:If obly

[david_thornley]

Who cares about what people think about TV shows with old values? I can find you lots and lots of literature that's racist, sexist, and homophobic. I haven't seem any clamor for banning Lovecraft's work, and the guy was a racist to the bone.

Re:If obly

[Mashiki]

That was your first mistake. I just hate conservative ideology. I want to be left alone.

Too bad. 5 years ago I was just like that until the regressives decided they wanted to start screwing with my hobbies.

Like gay marraige, birth control, where mosques can be built, what's allowable on TV or movies, violence in video games, recreational use of drugs, various levels of "obscenity" censorship laws, anti-porn stances - yeah the conservative element is SO TOTALLY open and FREE. You're retarded. You're a retarded motherfucker. We're done here.

Sorry retarded motherfucker? I must have missed all that since they were all progressive decisions here in Ontario. You know, Canada, in a province under a government that makes democrats seem like right-wingers.

Yep, you're in a bubble and have no clue what's going on around you.

Re:If obly

[Mashiki]

No business in their right mind gives a rat's ass about what bleeding heart SJWs whine about on Twitter. Social media is a toxic cesspool in general, and it's best to simply pretend it doesn't exist.

No? Why don't you go and explain why there's so many companies pandering to the bleeding heart SJWs on every issue. From automotive, to print media, to online media, to video games. And they all do it based on that whine off social media. Maybe you can also explain the current BS being pushed by media matters and using exclusively progressive sites to push brands to do things to "people they don't like." I agree though, it's better to pretend it doesn't exist. Because once they have blood in the water or smell weakness, it's never enough and they just keep going.

Need an example? Magic the gathering.

Re:The next site...

[stealth_finger]

Me and my friends walk into AC's house and take everything. It's not a crime. Everybody is doing it. What's more, it says AC on all the receipts, so go on, prove it's not mine.

Nope, you go in and make copies of everything. AC won't even notice unless he catches you in the act or is watching, either way he's in the exact same position as before you and your buddies turned up.

Re:The next site...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, AC paid bunches of money to make this content and the only way to make a return on the investment is to sell copies. So, you walk in make your own copy bypassing/stealing the only way AC can make his money back on the production of that content. I see AC's point of view but the problem lies in that AC places far more value in a copy of said content than every else does. Economics is usually not AC's strong point.

Anonymous Coward

Re: The next site...

[c6gunner]

AC won't even notice unless he catches you in the act or is watching

Which is why it's totally cool to copy his homemade porn videos and post them on the torrent sites.

DirecTV Now vs. Youtube TV vs. Set TV?

[Johnberg]

How is Set TV different than DirecTV Now or Youtube TV ... other than it offers more channels for less $

Re:DirecTV Now vs. Youtube TV vs. Set TV?

[Sarten-X]

Apparently the lack of licensing agreements would be a major point...

Re:DirecTV Now vs. Youtube TV vs. Set TV?

[luther349]

because they pirate there streams.

Re:DirecTV Now vs. Youtube TV vs. Set TV?

[farble1670]

How is Set TV different than DirecTV Now or Youtube TV

Hmmm. Let's see. The former doesn't license any of the content, meaning the folks that produced the content get zero compensation for their efforts?

I mean, that might be it. I'm not sure.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

WRONG

[Anonymous Coward]

See axanar vs discovery and think had they waited a bit and moved everything to canada where STAR TREK TOS IS NOW IN PUBLIC DOMAIN

Help Please

[WinstonWolfIT]

Their web site doesn't explain where the content comes from. The media companies being annoyed says it's doing some sort of end around.

Re:Help Please

[ripvlan]

Yes - I'll join you. Someone please enlighten us. I don't get it either. Based on other comments it suggests Setv may be streaming material that is / should be in the public domain?

Or not: I've seen friends who stream sports matches from overseas using stolen credentials - all through an app that they download. And there's that Roku box package thing that was shutdown last year.

So are they attempting to provide access to "open" info or pirate content? Either way it sounds like they are taking the $20 and NOT sharing it with the content creators.

Re:Help Please

[grnbrg]

Their channel listing: https://www.setvnow.com/channe...

In addition to various streams that are like re-streams of freely available OTA content, there are a lot of channels that are cable only, some of which will be premium channels on any cable package. Access to such channels by established cable companies requires very expensive licensing agreements, and those license fees are passed on to the consumer.

Whether you like existing copyright laws or not, this company is quite clearly breaking them. The lawsuit will not go well for them. Although they are probably not located anywhere where US law enforcement is likely to bother them, their domains will be seized, their apps removed from easy distribution and their US bank accounts frozen....

Re:Help Please

[Kenja]

It comes from the web. They are tapping into the streaming content that others provide, inserting their own ads and calling it a day. Thus the lawsuit, they are basicly "rebroadcasting" content without permission.

So at the end of the day, you're paying 20$ a month for a web browser and an aggregation service.

Re:Help Please

[WinstonWolfIT]

So something like subscribing to HBO and rebroadcasting? If so they're screwed except Hong Kong might have a loophole.

Re:Help Please

[luther349]

there is tons of sites just like his and no there not very smart.

Re:The next site...

[Wycliffe]

I was all about pirating content when I was younger ... then I became a software developer and suddenly it finally clicked in that even though its just a copy, its still is taking things away from those who made it. If one person buys my software and just gives copies to everyone else, I can't sustain the process of making software. Its that simple.

Sadly, the best way to prevent software piracy is online only apps where you don't purchase the software only rent/use them. If media could figure out a way to do this I would expect media to follow suit. The problem is that unlike interactive software, it's too easy to record movies. I wouldn't be surprised though if movies start becoming more interactive as a way to prevent piracy.

Welcome to Gig Economy.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

There should be an Uber for Netflix.

When I am not watching Netflix, I should be able to sell the stream I am entitled to, on the net for some money on the side.

I think this service should label itself "as NOT a TV service provider" and call it self "media stream hailing service (SHS)". I should be able to list my Netflix stream, Prime stream on it for a specific duration. Anyone can look it up and hail this stream and pay me for use. I might sell my Netflix stream for 20 cents an hour. The SHS company will take its cut, may be 8 cents and give me 12 cents. Or I might sell it for 1 cent an hour, and we split it 50-50 with the SHS.

That would be a real disruptor. Quick, let me patent/copyright this idea.

Re:Welcome to Gig Economy.

[fropenn]

No one will pay $.20 to watch an hour of Netflix. At 2 hours per day, that's $2.80 per week or about $11.20 a month (which is about the price of a Netflix streaming package, from what I remember).

No, I think you offer it for free but insert your own pop-up advertisements and commercials throughout the programs. It would be a gold mine.

Let's patent together - I'll split the profit with you 50 / 50.

Re:Welcome to Gig Economy.

[DontBeAMoran]

I like your idea but I would add blockchain micro-payments using one of the more serious crypto-currency, which is Dogecoin. Let's patent together - I'll split the profit with both of you 50/50/75.

Re:Welcome to Gig Economy.

[Lord_Jeremy]

Actually, I would go for something like that. I watch maybe a few hours of Netflix per month. Usually because a friend tells me I should check out a show or my girlfriend stays over and wants to watch something randomly. I realized recently that the fairly old account I own had been "upgraded" over time to some Ultra HD tier that cost about $18 a month. I was a little miffed to look at my billing history and realize that I've given them about $400 over the past couple years but my viewing history shows I barely use it.

Re:Welcome to Gig Economy.

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

I always set up a virtual credit card with a dollar limit to give these companies. Once the limit is reached, till I check and give a new number they dont get money.

But Citi card stupidly automatically allowed them to charge my card even with an expired card number. Some bullshit argument, "since the vendor has been charging monthly, to avoid service interruption, blah blah blah...". I put my foot down and said, "no way. The whole idea of the virtual number and dollar limit is meaningless with this policy. You deal with the vendor, I am not paying".

Two such vendors. tentkottai.com and some ISP. Then they reversed one legitimate charge from tentkottai.com Called them and asked them to reverse that reversal. ISP came down from high horse and allowed me to keep the domain without any activity. Expired domain names are bought by scammers and set up redirect sites. So I am paying to hold down a few domain names.

But always use virtual numbers for such services.

So 20$ a month?

[s122604]

Don't get it. If you want to take up the left hand path, Just get a raspberry PI or a firestick, load up terrarium tv, and there you are...0$ a month

Re:So 20$ a month?

[godefroi]

If you're going to illegally stream your media, you might as well do it for free.

Re:So 20$ a month?

[Howitzer86]

No, but for $10 more you can get Sling TV. It's not $500 channels, but I've selected a package more to my liking than I ever could have with $80+ cable.

My only concern now is throttling, to which I'll respond with a cheap VPN account.

Re:The next site...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it wasn't, that law wasn't passed until after she was no longer Sec of State. But it's is obviously too much to expect people to learn facts.

Re: The next site...

[stealth_finger]

Well, if you will upload your home made sex tapes to icloud then yeah.

Re:The next site...

[grnbrg]

So if I download a copy of your software, your company is cool with me using and redistributing it in any way I see fit? I don't have any contract at all with you.

Information about Set TV and illegal IPTV

[Not-a-Neg]

Here is a fairly informative article about Set TV and how illegal IPTV services work: https://flixed.io/set-tv-not-l...

Y not Sue Google over YouTube copyright violation?

[walterbyrd]

I can listen to any song I want on youtube. Usually with no advertisements.

I can also watch a lot documentaries, movies, and TV shows.

Copyright evolved with tech, that will continue

[TheZeitgeist]

Copyright used to be approximate to patents in legal protections and tenure (~17 years).

In this form, copyright remained sleepy legal corner of patent law until record players, radios, and film.

The controllers of those innovations perverted copyright to suit control of media, calibrated to their distribution technologies. Unwittingly, they've constructed a legalism as outdated as the technologies that drove modern perception of copyright.

Technology incentivized copyright into becoming the legal disaster it is today. It has to evolve with that technology or become more toothless and pointless than it already is.

Re:Copyright evolved with tech, that will continue

[UnknowingFool]

Technology incentivized copyright into becoming the legal disaster it is today. It has to evolve with that technology or become more toothless and pointless than it already is.

Er? Every single copyright holder has always had the ability to control their content, and today consumers have multiple technological means to legally get content that we didn't have 20 or sometimes 10 years ago. For example Netflix only started streaming 11 years ago. Before then their predominant delivery was mail. Apple and Amazon certainly didn't stream 20 years ago. These advances have pushed traditional distribution methods to innovate. If you are looking at physical distribution, Redbox has largely replaced Blockbuster. Pay per view purchases now have to compete with other methods.

Re:Copyright evolved with tech, that will continue

[TheZeitgeist]

Copyright has evolved with the tech. Since a movie is theoretically 'forever,' copyright has been expanding sunset provision to copyright holder out towards...forever. This is why Mickey Mouse's Steamboat Willie from 1928 is still controlled by Disney even though anybody who actually made it, or invented Mickey Mouse, is dead. The only 'copyright holder' is a corporation peopled by nobody who had a hand creating Mickey Mouse. If patents worked that way, patent infringement would be kinda rampant.

That corrupt setup with copyright worked between corporations, but only so long as corporations controlled the manufacture of movie media and distribution channels for said media. Ever since CD burners and the internet that (wait for it) 'paradigm' has changed

So now there's this copyright legal institution that is built to keep media properties proprietary to corporations in perpetuity decades after the creator died...yet the actual enforcing mechanism - corporations controlling media manufacture and distribution - no longer applies.

Re:Copyright evolved with tech, that will continue

[david_thornley]

It's not a matter of movies being approximately eternal, since that's true of literature.

Correction

[Howitzer86]

500 the number, not the dollar amount...

Re:Y not Sue Google over YouTube copyright violati

[supremebob]

What's crazy is that for certain genres (like car reviews), the YouTube content is better than a lot of the paid content out there.

Re:Y not Sue Google over YouTube copyright violati

[luther349]

youtube is very aggressive on removing infringing stuff. some things slip there of course. most music they allow due to a agreement of the copyright holder getting all the ad sense.

Re:The next site...

[Glarimore]

I wouldn't be surprised though if movies start becoming more interactive as a way to prevent piracy.

I believe they call that a video game.

500 Channels?

[wbtittle]

I cut the cable a long time ago. For a long time we only had Fox. American Idol was a regular thing. I bought a new TV recently. Now I have 30 OTA channels AND Hundreds of IP channels. They are all painful. I am a big fan of Netflix and Hulu.

I just checked with them; they're 100% legal.

[karlandtanya]

Carl
Customer support

Chat started

Customer Service
Welcome! Thank you for contacting Support! Can we help you with anything?
You — Please update your info
How's the lawsuit going? Are you guys criminally liable or just civil?

I'll assume criminal liability unless you say otherwise ;)

Carl joined the chat

Carl
Hello! Thank you for contacting chat support.

Our service is 100% legal.

Thank you for your inquiry this issue has been forwarded to our legal department any further questions email to:Compliance@setvnow.com or legal@setvnow.com
You — Please update your info
OK, cool; thanks for the reply!

Re:The next site...

[hierofalcon]

Using her mail server (regardless of timing of laws and application of what should have been common sense) for non classified e-mails wasn't what got people really ticked off. Handling classified documents in a way that would have gotten other people fired or jailed was the big issue. Maybe it was just me.

Oh... and the handling of evidence once it became an issue... there's that too...

Re:Smells like anarchist bullshit ...

[ConceptJunkie]

I think you're overthinking the defense of SetTV. I can simplify it: Freetards gonna freetard.

Re:The next site...

[Oligonicella]

Thus displaying for all that you do not comprehend what copyright about.

Re: The next site...

[Oligonicella]

Were you invited in? No? It's a crime.

Re:The next site...

[Oligonicella]

*** Same guy you see on the streets shouting both sides of an argument to himself. ***

Re:The next site...

[CrashNBrn]

It's not really "piracy" when you are paying a company for their hardware and subscription service.

Re:The next site...

[Anonymous Coward]

I too am a software developer and have a degree Computer Science. The difference between the two of us is I have an education in business. "IP" and copy"right" is basically bull shit. It's abused to gain an advantage in all sorts of businesses rather than as a LIMITED monopoly to promote the development of the arts and sciences for the benefit of the people as it was originally argued. In a real free market businesses aren't guaranteed a monopoly and to achieve the copy"right" monopoly and "IP" in general you have to use violence, theft, and coercion to achieve your social and political objective here in spite of there being more ethical business models that don't depend on violence, theft, or coercion.

I have built 4 or 5 businesses in my life time around the development of software, video/audio, and photographic content. I have never relied on copy"right" to succeed. I have never threatened violence or theft from those who copied materials without "permission" from me. In fact there was only one time I ever asked anyone to pull down content and it had nothing to do with profits. It was more of a privacy/security matter. It's unlikely that the world would have come crashing down even if I hadn't succeeded in getting the individual to take down the material. I didn't use the threat of violence or theft to demand it. I simply explained the situation and let them know I supported what they were doing. This was almost certainly a customer of ours too. This one thing was hardly an issue either. You see I sold subscriptions and if you wanted the latest and greatest content that I was producing at the time you'd simply buy a subscription. Prices were sane and people would re-publish content elsewhere.

You might say- but that wasn't software! Well- true. While I don't do run that business any more either (shut down for reasons of time- ran that business in my youth) I do have a software development business today where we - gasp- even release the COMPLETE set of source code! Imagine that. In spite of that or really because of that we have a sizable customer base.

* I also co-host two significant radio shows, one of them being syndicated on hundreds of stations across the USA, Satellite, and online, and will be producing a new TV show shortly as well. You can make money without copy"right" as all these active shows are profitable (the TV show will be, but isn't airing yet).

I am pretty confident in saying that I'm most likely doing significantly better than you too given where I stand on the class ladder. The reality is that its not copy"right" that makes you "well off" or "able to eat", but the business model behind your creation. And you don't need copy"right" to achieve that. You need a sane workable business model. Things I've achieved throughout my life without any dependence on copy"right".

Sure- you might be able to do better with copy"right" if you don't mind exploiting people. But you don't need it as an author. In a free market you should see many creative businesses fail just as you see most non-creative businesses fail within months of opening. It's the cost of living in a free market and a free society. Unfortunately we don't have a free market because we have copy"right" and the bigger powers that be abuse it to there full unfair advantage over competition. Both industries and companies regularly demand regulations and advocate for those regulations on grounds of safety or "think of the children". What we as a society largely don't realize is that we're giving the established players in that industry an unfair advantage on arguments that aren't based on science/logic/rationale because emotional arguments trump rational logical ones based on real science near every time. Its more satisfying to pass irrational logical laws and seek revenge based on bigoted emotional non-sense.

Don't understand how this works

[psmoot]

This isn't the first company to set up antenna, catch OTA signals, and time or space shift them. Wasn't there a case against some other company a few years ago? IIRC the company won with the courts saying time and space shifting was permitted.

That doesn't work for streaming services. I'm obligated to have a Netflix account to view Netflix content. I can see how it might be fine for me to buffer the bits and watch them later. I don't think I have the right to keep those buffered bits if I should cancel my Netflix account. I don't think it's ethical (and probably in violation of my contract with Netflix) if I buffer the bits and share them with anyone who pays me $20.

So how is Set TV legally getting the streaming content to re-stream?

Re:The next site...

[farble1670]

Nope, you go in and make copies of everything. AC won't even notice unless he catches you in the act or is watching, either way he's in the exact same position as before you and your buddies turned up.

Sigh. It it costs $25m to produce a series season, and no one subscribes because they all pirate the content, what do you think happens? This isn't hard. When you pirate, you mooch. You mooch from everyone that pays for a subscription. You rely on me paying for a subscription to subsidize your downloading.

Re:The next site...

[farble1670]

Also, it's not really "theft" if you purchase a stolen iPhone. Right?

Re:The next site...

[CrashNBrn]

I suppose it would depend on whether you knew it was stolen, you might be liable on something akin to aiding and abetting theft.

It would seem Set TV is clearly breaking the law, akin to the various KODI-box clones (Dragon?) that have gotten shut down, but I don't see how their users in question would be liable for piracy.

Re:The next site...

[farble1670]

are they also "mooching" off of you?

I wouldn't call it mooching, but I agree they are manipulating the laws to their benefit.

But this is what I don't get. Whether you steal their content, or choose to not purchase their content, it's the same effect to them: they don't get your money. So it seems a little too convenient that so many folks' decide on a "moral" course of action that happens to align with them saving hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on media consumption.

If you really feel strongly that copyright laws are being abused, abstain from consumption of the relevant content. Why put a big question mark over your intentions?

Re:The next site...

[farble1670]

I suppose it would depend on whether you knew it was stolen, you might be liable on something akin to aiding and abetting theft.

As they say, ignorance of the law is not a defense. If you bought an iPhone 10 for $100 from a guy on the street, you'd fail miserably if you attempted to claim you didn't know it was stolen. Same here. If you are getting hundreds of dollars worth of streaming services and content for $20 / month, you can't claim ignorance.

I don't see how their users in question would be liable for piracy.

There have been many, many legal cases showing that downloading pirated content is against the law. Not that Netflix et al. is going to prosecute users of this system, but the OP's suggestion that the fact they purchased the device and are "paying" for the subscription makes it all legally kosher is idiotic.

So...

[BitztreamNotARealNam]

How's life in the hypocrite lane?

Re:The next site...

[stealth_finger]

What, the unauthorised copying of data? Clue's in the name mate. If it was the same as theft it would be called theft but it's not so it's not.

Re:The next site...

[stealth_finger]

Yeah if EVERYONE pirates its stops getting made. Well this needless quest for profits crap tv stops getting made anyway. Let's talk about why it cost $25 million to make a series and then the need to make all that money back plus profit so you make show as widely appealing as possible to increase your audience, diluting your show to the point that no one really likes it and its just another generic piece of shit and no one really wants to buy it so they pirate it. And also what about the fact the networks are going back to hoarding. you want to watch this show, you need a subscription to service x. this other show is on service y and so on. You can either subscribe to everything or just pirate it. Here's a novel solution, stop paying so called stars buckets of cash, make shows that are actually good and well written, sell them in a way thats easy to buy and consumer friendly, go back to making shows that stand on their own instead of how much advertising they can sell. Until then, cry me a fucking river.

Re:The next site...

[stealth_finger]

But this is what I don't get. Whether you steal their content, or choose to not purchase their content, it's the same effect to them: they don't get your money

This is the bit I don't get. the assumption that they would have got your money or are somehow entitled to it anyway. It's been shown time and time again that a pirate copy does not equal a lost sale.

Re:The next site...

[david_thornley]

There's a deal involved. It's been way distorted until most people don't recognize it any more, but it's that we give creative people an amount of time to make money off their work, and then it goes into the public domain. The copyright period is intended to allow people time to make money When that time has expired, everybody gets it. After all, copyright is an infringement on free speech and harms development of culture, so we don't want it to last indefinitely.

It's not going to bother me any if you pirate stuff that's 28 years old, because that was the law the last time it actually served the Constitutional purpose, but bear in mind that the justice system doesn't necessarily conform to my moral stands.

Re:The next site...

[david_thornley]

Unless you're going to give me a good reason why she may have intended to cheat on handling classified information, we have to compare her with people who inadvertently mishandled classified information, none of whom that I could find were jailed.