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

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.

Comments

they should also quit selling

[FudRucker]

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

Re:they should also quit selling

[craighansen]

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

Easier?

[GameboyRMH]

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.

Re:Easier?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Easier?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Easier?

[dk20]

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?

Re:Easier?

[JackieBrown]

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.

Re:Easier?

[JackieBrown]

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

Re:Easier?

[fussy_radical]

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.

Re:Easier?

[dk20]

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.

Fire TV as well?

[Nicholas Schumacher]

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...

Re:Fire TV as well?

[aardvarkjoe]

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.

Re:Fire TV as well?

[renegade600]

lets not forget computers.

Re:Fire TV as well?

[Obfuscant]

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?

Re:Fire TV as well?

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:Fire TV as well?

[aardvarkjoe]

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.

Re:Fire TV as well?

[CrimsonAvenger]

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....

Re:Fire TV as well?

[Obfuscant]

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.

Re:Fire TV as well?

[Obfuscant]

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.

Good for Fire TV

[omnichad]

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.

Another unjustified stab at Kodi

[Anonymous Coward]

Have journalists always been weaponized idiots?

Re:Another unjustified stab at Kodi

[atrex]

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.

Asks?!

[NicknameUnavailable]

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.

I thought Amazon already did?

[the_skywise]

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

Paid for FCC flailing around.

[WolfgangVL]

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.

While your at it

[WaffleMonster]

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

Re:While your at it

[supremebob]

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

like uber?

[Joe_Dragon]

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

The Thing About The Boxes That Is Fake

[Bing Tsher E]

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

One of those is not like the other...

[XSportSeeker]

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.

TPB is blocked in the UK...

[queBurro]

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?

I am the only guy with Kodi who doesn't pirate?

[pecosdave]

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)

Which part of the "fake TV box" is fake?

[eepok]

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?

Who pays for the filtering?

[micahraleigh]

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?