Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FCC Asks Amazon and eBay To Stop Selling Fake Pay TV Boxes (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on from the taking-a-stand dept.

Last week, the Federal Communications Commission sent a letter to Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos and eBay CEO Devin Wenig asking their companies to help remove the listings for fake pay TV boxes from their respective websites. From a report: These boxes often falsely bear the FCC logo, the letter informed, and are used to perpetuate "intellectual property theft and consumer fraud." With the rise in cord cutting, a number of consumers have found it's just as easy to use an app like Kodi on a cheap streaming media device to gain access to content â" like TV shows and movies -- that they would otherwise miss out on by dropping their pay TV subscription. As an added perk, various software add-ons enable consumers to stream movies still in the theaters, too. It's an easier way to access pirated content than visiting The Pirate Bay and downloading torrent files.

62 comments

  1. They should by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just say no

  2. they should also quit selling by FudRucker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    non compliant cellphones too, require nothing less than GSM with 4g LTE, just do a search of some of those rugged cellphones with extra long battery life and you will find a boatload of old cellphones with obsolete specs/tech that wont even work with the system we have now

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:they should also quit selling by craighansen · · Score: 1

      Those non-compliant cellphones are perfectly useful GUI pads for Android applications using WIFI. Let us buy what we want to buy.

    2. Re:they should also quit selling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Works great until your cheap knock-off phone catches fire because it's using cheap knock-off batteries that overheat.
       
      Why do people assume a company only cut just the one corner?

    3. Re:they should also quit selling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now that's just pure FUD. A phone designed to use 3g when 3g is current doesn't retroactively become a knock-off when 4g becomes current, and proper batteries don't spontaneously transform into cheap knock-off batteries when that happens.

  3. Easier? by GameboyRMH · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's an easier way to access pirated content than visiting The Pirate Bay and downloading torrent files.

    Have you seen how much of a PITA is it to keep those damn Kodi plugins updated to whatever the good working plugins are this month from whatever repo they're hiding on this week? I disagree.

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
    1. Re:Easier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Literally this is why I don't bother with it. Way too big of a hassle for the return. I don't need that much TV anyway.

    2. Re:Easier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Kodi sucks....

      Plex + Flexget, and I'll never look back. I get higher quality content, and Plex is so easy even my wife can use it.

    3. Re:Easier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ultimately, that's the bigger issue.

      Most of the the programming on television is shit and not worth watching. And for the little bit of decent content that exists, even if you "cut the cord", you still have to pay out the ass for slow, shitty Internet service, due to the complete lac of competition.

      Going after things like Kodi is faster, easier and cheaper than actually producing content that people would be willing to pay for.

    4. Re:Easier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny...Since I installed TVAddons I haven't had to manually update any of them.

    5. Re:Easier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I use Kodi with NextPVR to record from my HDHomeRun (Antenna) and to stream my movie collection. Works well and wife has no problem controlling PVR.

    6. Re:Easier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree, futzing around with one kodi box reminded me heavily of the same rigmarole I went through installing addons to xbmc on the ORIGINAL modded xbox, back in 2002. These extensions and how they run are exactly as they were back then. Nothing has changed and they are still all shit.

      Cord cutting doesn't mean they all got kodi boxes instead, it means they probably also got subscriptions to netflix, amazon and youtube red but STILL have a ton of money left over from that cord cut and STILL can't get all the content that they seek that they then try experimenting with now affordable hardware as well; Cause the cord that was cut was such an outrageous expensive glut.

    7. Re:Easier? by dk20 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      you have any idea what you are talking about?

      this is the legal def. of theft:

      Theft, in law, a general term covering a variety of specific types of stealing, including the crimes of larceny, robbery, and burglary. Theft is defined as the physical removal of an object that is capable of being stolen without the consent of the owner and with the intention of depriving the owner of it permanently.

      people llike you can push your "theft" agenda all you want. it is copyright information, not theft.

      what about theft from the public domain? you know, they get a copyright, decide 70 years isnt long enough and petitiion to make it even longer?

    8. Re:Easier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this better than Sonarr?

    9. Re:Easier? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Ultimately, that's the bigger issue.

      Most of the the programming on television is shit and not worth watching. And for the little bit of decent content that exists, even if you "cut the cord", you still have to pay out the ass for slow, shitty Internet service, due to the complete lac of competition.

      Going after things like Kodi is faster, easier and cheaper than actually producing content that people would be willing to pay for.

      Wow - Then drop the internet service. Money saved you can buy the physical copies on amazon, pawn shops, Goodwill, or used book stores.

    10. Re:Easier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      @GameboyRMH - I agree! If I want to watch something I can always find a torrent and quickly get it... and then I have no streaming issues later while watching it. I do use Kodi though... I use it to stream from a computer in my basement to my TV upstairs via SMB protocol (it worked way better than my XBOX or using a laptop lol). That's it though - no plugins and no streaming for me.

    11. Re:Easier? by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      That's the one that went down and was taken over by a lawfirm, correct?

    12. Re:Easier? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you have any idea what you are talking about? this is the legal def. of theft:

      I think I do. You're just quoting Encyclopedia Britannica. In what jurisdictions is that definition true and relevant? In my state, at least, theft is defined in a more general way, which covers services and value as well as property.

      people llike you can push your "theft" agenda all you want. it is copyright information [sic], not theft.

      You mean, people who read their laws? There may also be copyright infringement for the content, but the wrongful use of services is black letter theft.

      what about theft from the public domain?

      I see no law against that. Every definition of "theft" in my state hinges on "the property or services of another", and "public domain" is not a person. You started your comment by trying to define a legal term, and you ended up speaking in metaphors to try to overextend your claims.

      The only exception I see for theft from the public is RCW 79.02.310, which states that taking a tree or earth (only) from public land while trespassing is also considered theft.

    13. Re:Easier? by fussy_radical · · Score: 1

      I believe calling it theft is disingenuous too. I think one could argue that (and in some peoples mind it may be what they are thinking) it is closely related to theft of service but I would think it would only be theft of service in the initial (first) copying of the media and copyright infringement every time you "distribute" it.

    14. Re:Easier? by dk20 · · Score: 1

      DId you read the link you posted? it is very consistant with what i had posted as well

      (a) To wrongfully obtain or exert unauthorized control over the property or services of another or the value thereof, with intent to deprive him or her of such property or services; or

      so.. when the OP downloads a TV show, has he deprived the owner of property or a service? Has he exerted control over the property or service?

      Here (Canada) the definition is also very consistant

      http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca...

      theft, by definition centers around depriving someone of somethign (a good or service). even your own state laws clearly specify this.

      so.. when did copyright infringmenetn become theft?

      continue your marketing campaign, debeers convinced people a rock is worth 2 months salary.. maybe you can redefine "theft" as well.

  4. Fire TV as well? by Nicholas+Schumacher · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder if the FCC wants Amazon to stop selling the Fire TV devices as well - given that they are also capable of running Kodi...

    --
    -Nick
    My name is Obi-Wan Kenobi. You killed my master. Prepare to die.
    1. Re:Fire TV as well? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1

      My first thought as well. I've got two Fire TV sticks, which are pretty decent platforms for running Kodi. Although you can't install it directly from Amazon's web store, it only takes a few minutes to sideload Kodi.

      Ostensibly the FCC is complaining about boxes that don't have the appropriate FCC authorization; I would assume that Amazon's Fire TV has it. But they make it really clear in the letter that it's really the piracy angle that is the actual concern.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    2. Re:Fire TV as well? by renegade600 · · Score: 1

      lets not forget computers.

    3. Re:Fire TV as well? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the FCC wants Amazon to stop selling the Fire TV devices as well - given that they are also capable of running Kodi...

      Are Fire TV devices manufactured and sold in the US without the required FCC certification for unintentional radiators, using false marking claiming certification? Is there some federal regulation that talks about "running Kodi" that would make Fire TV devices illegal to sell in the US?

    4. Re:Fire TV as well? by Obfuscant · · Score: 4, Informative

      But they make it really clear in the letter that it's really the piracy angle that is the actual concern.

      I read the letter. It's the fraudulent use of FCC logo and claim of certification that is the issue. Let's recap:

      Paragraph 1 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.

      Paragraph 2 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.

      Paragraph 3 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.

      Paragraph 4 talks about removing devices that are intended to facilitate intellectual property theft.

      Paragraph 5 deals with "unlawful devices", which is because these are not certified and have false FCC logos.

      Paragraph 6 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.

      Paragraph 7 thanks both companies first for "upholding the Commission's equipment authorization process" and then for fighting IP theft, and then fighting consumer fraud. Two of the three "thanks" are for FCC certification fraud.

      It would seem that the failure to certify the devices and use of the FCC logo fraudulently is the majority, if not the vast majority, of what the letter is about. To claim that the "actual concern" is IP theft ignores the "elephant in the letter". As the letter puts it, it is "outside the jurisdiction of the Commission" to take any action based on piracy, but they certainly have jurisdiction and sufficient cause to order the withdrawal of sale of such equipment based on FCC and other federal regulations, whether or not piracy is involved in any way. In fact, if either eBay or Amazon are actually participants in the sale they could be fined for those sales.

    5. Re:Fire TV as well? by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Paragraph 1 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.

      From paragraph 1: "Although sufficiently disturbing on its own, these devices are particularly problematic as they are perpetrating intellectual property theft and consumer fraud." He makes it clear that they are specifically targeting devices enabling piracy.

      Paragraph 3 deals with fraudulent FCC logo and failure to certify the device.

      From paragraph 3: "nine set top box distributors were referred to the FCC in October for enabling the unlawful streaming of copyrighted material, seven of which displayed the FCC logo, although there was no record of such compliance."

      Anyone can read the letter and come to their own conclusions, of course, but it seems obvious to me that the reason why they're going after these particular devices is due to piracy, not primarily because of a lack of FCC authorization.

      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    6. Re:Fire TV as well? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 1

      Anyone can read the letter and come to their own conclusions, of course, but it seems obvious to me that the reason why they're going after these particular devices is due to piracy, not primarily because of a lack of FCC authorization.

      No, it's not lack of FCC authorization. It's PRETENDING to FCC authorization that's the problem. The FCC really doesn't want to find itself being accused of encouraging piracy....

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    7. Re:Fire TV as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The letter makes it clear from the onset that the reason for this is piracy in the very first paragraph. In the same paragraph, he states that even though the FCC has no obligation to stop the sales of unauthorized devices, they are trying to do so anyway.

      There are plenty of other types of devices sold every day that carry an unauthorized FCC logo: computers, GPS, watches, phones, audio players, radios, etc. You're an ignorant fool if you think this commissioner is pursuing this just to stop the unauthorized use of the FCC logo.

    8. Re:Fire TV as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not lack of FCC authorization. It's PRETENDING to FCC authorization that's the problem. The FCC really doesn't want to find itself being accused of encouraging piracy....

      If you've ever bothered to actually read the FCC authorization declaration, it's plainly clear that FCC's regulatory interest is in communication interference standards. Nothing about the FCC's logo presence indicates any sort of endorsement except compliance with that interference regulation. In short, there's absolutely no reason for there to be mention of piracy by the FCC unless it were the concern about radio piracy or the like, which is not at all implied or suggested.

      No, the whole point is to effectively threaten Amazon and eBay to take down ALL boxes by putting them on notice that they may be used for piracy, setting up a later possible claim they were complicit in facilitating piracy. Until they receive some notification, they can plead ignorance. This would be no different than if the NHTSA were to in the future suggest to Tesla that auto-pilot on their then present semi-trailer fleet may be used for illegal human smuggling as a means to curtail that operation. It matters little if that's the norm or that many legal uses against. It's enough that Tesla were put on notice if such were found and Tesla sold many such vehicles to Mexico.

    9. Re:Fire TV as well? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      No, it's not lack of FCC authorization. It's PRETENDING to FCC authorization that's the problem.

      It's both. Devices like that require certification under Part 15 before they can be sold in the US. Forging the FCC label is fraud.

    10. Re:Fire TV as well? by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      From paragraph 1: "Although sufficiently disturbing on its own, "

      In other words, the main problem is the lack of FCC certification, but it ALSO has a problem ... secondary issue.

      From paragraph 3: "nine set top box distributors were referred to the FCC in October for enabling the unlawful streaming of copyrighted material, seven of which displayed the FCC logo, although there was no record of such compliance."

      The first (topic) sentence of that paragraph, as well as the last part of the sentence you quoted only a fraction of, refers specifically to FCC certification. You're latching on to a minor part of the letter and claiming that it is the primary focus.

      but it seems obvious to me that the reason why they're going after these particular devices is due to piracy, not primarily because of a lack of FCC authorization.

      Other than the fact that the FCC specifically says that they don't have jurisdiction to act on the piracy issue, and that almost all of the letter deals with lack of authorization and certification, you would be right.

      It's like you're complaining that they used the salutation "gentlemen" when you don't believe that either Bezos or Wenig are gentlemen. That's not what the letter is about.

    11. Re:Fire TV as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ostensibly the FCC is complaining about boxes that don't have the appropriate FCC authorization

      I can understand complaining about pretending to have FCC authorization.

      But not having it - does a Raspberry Pi sold in the US need FCC authorization? And if so, is it the seller or the manufacturers job to get said authorization? Presumably, since the FCC authorizations is fake, the Raspberry Pi is not FCC authorized. So, is it illegal to sell a Raspberry Pi in the US?

    12. Re:Fire TV as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are mostly Raspberry Pi's? Are you saying that the Raspberry Pi is illegal in the US?

    13. Re:Fire TV as well? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can see a lot of Chinese unscrewing FCC boxes and refitting them in plain plastic boxes - problem solved. Mind you, there is the claim OFTEN which is meaningless
      Or a heated stamp proclaiming ' NOT FCC APPROVED' but meets or exceeds all revevant engineering and RFI standards.

      For generic hardware, FCC must approve it I think. Perhaps they must accept Chinese engeneeing certificates, unless they can prove otherwise

      The FCC comes across as ignorant. The British say infringement, US claim theft - but its open source, but both know deceptive or misleading is good enough to it to be yanked - for 5 minutes - the time to put it in a white box. Nothing like 'Not for sale in the USA' will make this box a top seller must have.

  5. Good for Fire TV by omnichad · · Score: 1

    Amazon was just looking for an excuse to get rid of one more category of competitor anyway. It's not like the Chromecast is a huge seller on Amazon.

  6. Another unjustified stab at Kodi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Have journalists always been weaponized idiots?

    1. Re:Another unjustified stab at Kodi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is not a stab at kodi at all. it is a stab at the kits that make fraudulent statements to mislead consumers. yes they happen to bundle kodi but that is not the target.

    2. Re:Another unjustified stab at Kodi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pretty much.

    3. Re:Another unjustified stab at Kodi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why mention it if it's not a target?

      When the subject is pirated games, most articles don't go "Windows this, Windows that, Windows illegal something, Windows Windows".

    4. Re:Another unjustified stab at Kodi by atrex · · Score: 2

      Have journalists always been weaponized idiots?

      The parent is absolutely right. Kodi does not allow and has never supported copyright infringement, and they have at times vehemently gone after people that sell boxes with Kodi preinstalled with Third Party plug-ins that allow for such. Like many open source projects though, their time and resources are limited.

  7. Asks?! by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    Since when does the federal government ask for people to stop impersonating them? Lock Bezos up and have him pounded in the ass by a big guy with aids just like if anyone else did this shit.

  8. I thought Amazon already did? by the_skywise · · Score: 1

    Both as a form of competition and then blocking aspects of Kodi on the newer FireTV sticks?

  9. Paid for FCC flailing around. by WolfgangVL · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Like bit-torrent, the cat is out of the bag. No amount of flailing or FUD is going to make it go away. These devices are too easy to setup. Media prices and availability are convoluted and over priced, and laws so one sided that nobody respects them.

    Over and over I see copyright terms extended for no good reason. Theft of the public domain for YEARS is what led directly to where we are today. FCC can maybe try to regulate the sale of preconfigured boxes, but this software runs on so many different devices, and is so easy to setup that there is really nothing they can do about it. For the most part, it's open source, and community developed, so there is no company they can sue into oblivion. No end-game.

    It's funny, In my lifetime, I can remember the same flailing over VHS, Napster, TeVo, torrents, streaming, digital downloads... the list goes on and on. The tech never goes away. Sometimes there is a company to go after, sometimes they even lose, but aside from somebody losing ill-gotten profit, and a company closing its doors, the tech never goes away.

    The lawyers get paid, content keeps moving, and tech slowly evolves around whatever roadblocks and DRM is put into place. Copyright is extended, more ways to pirate are developed and the cycle continues.

    Even when they come up with a format or standard to stop the direct ripping and sharing of content, it ALWAYS fails. The floodgates open.

    Can't stop the signal.

    --
    You are being ripped off every second of every day, so that advertisers can help rip you off even more tomorrow.
    1. Re:Paid for FCC flailing around. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you make a rule there is always that 'one' person that 'must' break the rule. This is why we have sayings like, 'rules are made to be broken,' and why ideologies like, 'little white lies don't hurt anyone' have survived for so long, despite the people holding them, usually, condemning liars whenever they get a chance.

  10. While your at it by WaffleMonster · · Score: 1

    It would be swell if you could ask them to please stop selling fake USB sticks and bootleg DVDs.

    1. Re:While your at it by supremebob · · Score: 2

      Nah... those guys can't afford FCC lobbyists like the media companies and telcos can.

  11. like uber? by Joe_Dragon · · Score: 1

    Let's see how long amazon last doing that. How long will an no checkout store last selling beer with no id checks?

  12. The Thing About The Boxes That Is Fake by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    The thing about these boxes that is fake is the 'pay' part. That's about the limit of the deception.

  13. Kodi is a pain in the ass. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Plugins going out of date, repos going down, "whack-a-mole" streams.

    I have a RaspberryPi 3B+ with Sonarr and Radarr on it. Auto-collecting and sorting of movies and TV series fetched from Usenet and Torrent sites. Puts them all on a NAS4Free box and Apple TVs with the Infuse Pro app play *everything* with a nice, Netflix-like interface.

    No streaming but we don't watch sports and have an antenna on the roof for digital local channels.

  14. LOL Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you can buy illegal radio amplifiers and illegal "10 meter radios" for CB, and cheap Chinese VHF-UHF pre-programmed on all sorts of channels you can't legally use in the US, or Europe, or anywhere else. All the trash of the world can be yours ! Why shouldn't a cable box be different?

  15. One of those is not like the other... by XSportSeeker · · Score: 1

    Sure, removing devices with fake FCC and other logos, fine.
    Stop selling devices in which Kodi can be installed? So... all PCs, all Android smartphones, all Android devices, all devboards, several smart TVs.... at the very least FCC is describing there basically all possible set top Android devices.
    I'm not sure if they are going for completely different things there just to bunch crap together, or if they just fundamentally don't know what they are asking for, but it doesn't really matter. If Amazon stops selling those people will just go to eBay or Aliexpress. Or, you know, just repurpose devices. Which btw, wouldn't be such a bad thing, but not because FCC is asking for it.
    Plus, it's always good to note that Kodi has jackshit to do with this. They app functionality is literally a media player for TV, which is not illegal and is no justification for stopping sales of devices. Plugins might enable piracy, but so do most OSs and Internet connected devices.

  16. Another reason we need to end the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The FCC is doing shit it shouldn't be doing. This was not the result of a dangerous threat to Americans, but rather spurred on by a greedy entertainment industry. As a co-host on a major syndicated radio show (actually co-host a few different shows) I can say that this is bull shit. There are people in the entertainment industry that haven't adapted to the changing times (mostly copyright "owners") and pocket the majority of the money made.

    Copyright doesn't do what it was advertised to do. It's only because of a hack on Copyright law- via licenses- such as Creative Commons, the GNU GPL, and similar that we (the people) get any "benefit" from Copyright and only sort-of in a round about way (benefits we'd have if we simply didn't have copyright to begin with).

    As the leading enforcer of Coopyrights on projects licensed under the GNU GPL has stated repeatedly to me the battle is hopeless because there is no effective enforcement mechanism. This is within the context of companies abusing the terms of the licenses and not in relationship to users violating Copyright. The entertainment industry as a whole does have an effective means because they profit off the works.

    So in other words is he's admitting we'd be just as well off without Copyright as the entire philosophical reason of releasing code remains with or without Copyright. The difference only ends up being without Copyright that those dishonest companies who attempt to trick users into believing that they must pay for a license in order to utilize code that they have released under the GNU GPL 3 when in fact they don't won't be able to (as easily).

    Yea- I had to go in and work around one companies shitty tricks recently. The GNU GPL 3 allows certain restrictions and Flowplayer added one which prohibits users from essentially removing the Flowplayer logo unless the user modifies the software- but then they have to add to the canvas a really lengthy notice which ruins the visibility of the video more! Yikes. This isn't what the intention of section 7 was- but they've gone and abused it for profit and essentially to make the work non-free. It's a great con job. They also go out of the way to make it really difficult to figure out how to work around it by obfuscating code and not actually giving you all of the code in the download. It calls obfuscated scripts hosted on Amazon's servers which then contain the code that adds Flowplayer logo to your videos and this needs to be modified if you want to remove the logo (if you use the GPL 3 license you can and must do this) but in place of it you must add a lengthy bit of text saying its "based on the flow player source code". Wow- now there is a trick to be compliant with the terms requiring you to display this on the canvas. Nothing specifies the size of the font nor anything indicating that it has to remain on the screen so I just created an animated GIF that gets drawn to the canvas that has in small print the words indicated its based on the flowplayer code per the terms. But that is absurd. I shouldn't have had to do that. And if it wasn't for the fact there was javascript being distributed to end users I might not otherwise have even been required to do this because the GNU GPL license applies to distribution of rather than use of software. In other words most server software you do not have to accept the GNU GPL license to use because your not distributing said software. Your merely using it.

    1. Re:Another reason we need to end the FCC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I forgot to mention the reason for the animated GIF is you can make your text disappear after a few seconds so that you've complied with displaying the legal crap on the canvas per the terms while still not having it obstruct your video. But it's pretty obvious based on the confusing FAQs that they don't want you to do that and want to make you think that if you remove the logo you must pay them. This isn't right. I've got no objection to the request for funds or the promotion of the company as a means of payment. However they make sure the logo obstructs the usefulness of the software and thus forces anybody using it to either go through the trouble of figuring out how to work around it or otherwise pay up. That is not in the spirit of free software and abusive to the companies users. I would have more than happily paid up for code under the GNU GPL v3 license and did for templates and things that I used. However I was not going to do so for a company making a dick move like this.

  17. RPi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well there goes the Raspberry Pi. Seriously though, anyone who is seriously wanting a great Kodi box, the RPi is IT!

  18. TPB is blocked in the UK... by queBurro · · Score: 1

    The pirate bay is blocked in the UK due to allegedly supporting copyright infringement, so shouldn't both ebay and amazon be blocked for the same reason? I've never been sold anything fake off of TPB, but I've mistakenly bought loads of things from ebay and amazon that were marketed to me as being genuine e.g. sd cards, phone cases, cables etc. The bbc's "fake britain"tv program raised concerns about faked electrical items that can cause harm being sold on ebay/amazon, so... why isn't ebay and amazon being blocked for copyright infringement?

    --
    sag
  19. I am the only guy with Kodi who doesn't pirate? by pecosdave · · Score: 1

    Seriously, I love Kodi. I've got over 1,000 DVD's and BluRays (fuck the DMC) ripped, compressed, and stored on my Kodi system, but I bought all of it. Granted a lot of my movies were those $3 deals from Big Lots, used bulk purchases on eBay, and used Red Box movies that a grocery store near where I used to live sold them, but they're still legal that way.

    I've got my photo album on there and my music too. In fact I've got a cron job setup on my workstation that syncs my photos and ebooks (not actually in Kodi) up to my Kodi server as a make-shift backup, making sure I've got everything in at least two places.

    I do very little streaming with Kodi. I have a couple of news stations - which I rarely watch - setup on there through their web API's, as well as some access to content from PBS and some local three-letter big name TV services - lots of classic content, some new content, but nothing all-encompassing like Netflix. All of that's 100% legal through public APIs.

    Legal Kodi is incredibly awesome.

    My wife and her friend scheduled a Sunday afternoon lunch at her friends house, her husband showed off his pirate Kodi Firestick to me like it was something obscure I've never heard of and showed me how cool it was for streaming movies. I told him I've been using it since at least XBMC Eden. Every time he tried to bring up a movie it gave a URL error, a blocky, low bitrate trash fest, or when he finally did get one to work it had subtitles and people coughing in the theater. Why would I want to pirate? I'm much happier ripping and compressing my own stuff. In fact I've done enough work with all the tools that even if I had all the storage space in the world and weren't re-compressing to save room I would consider running some of the straight- from disk stuff through the tools anyways, turns out that NLMeans filter can make some things pulled off of film, especially cartoons, look better than the source material.

    Not pirating with Kodi is great.

    BTW - I'm using a first gen Intel Mac Pro - a 1,1 running Ubuntu. Great tank of a machine that supports big hard drives. Screw that little Fire Stick, I want some storage! (I am contemplating moving to something that consumes less electricity and generates less heat - but it has to support lots of storage easily)

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
  20. Which part of the "fake TV box" is fake? by eepok · · Score: 1

    I know nothing about this stuff. Is it not actually a box, but a bottle? Is it the box that a fake TV comes in? Why would someone buy either of those?

    Is it a device that allows you to watch "fake TV broadcasting"? What's so fake about it? Is it just a gif of channels being switched?

  21. Who pays for the filtering? by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    Now that we "know" something must be done ... who should pay for it?

    Is the government saying, "Something must be done, Amazon! And you shall pay for it without any monetary incentive!"

    Boo ... I hate it when the government says awful, one-sided nonsense like that to me.

    What about when the government says, "We shall pay for this thing to be done!"

    Well ... that means you and I are paying for it in our taxes.

    How about we just let the people who mistakenly think their products were FCC approved "pay" for this "who cares" fabrication?