Canadian TV, Computing and Home Theatre Forums banner

Sale of Android boxes To Obtain "Free TV" Is Now Illegal In Canada.

256K views 806 replies 78 participants last post by  Brontosaurus 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
#208 ·
The same claims were made about software piracy and music piracy. Further studies showed that the claimed losses were mostly fictitious. It turned out that many of the copies made were not lost sales or lost income because the product would not have been purchased by the people involved. Furthermore, victims of piracy inflated the value of the items copied by assuming maximum retail pricing that did not reflect the true market value of the loss. (This type of inflation is also seen in the reporting of crimes such as shoplifting and drug trafficking.) Once the so called victims of these crimes provided education, implemented up front compliance procedures and addressed consumer concerns the alleged losses became less of an issue.

I find it interesting the "bev fan" would promote facts provided by an industry that has been known to lie to promote its own interests, is known to be grossly mismanaged, often uses political influence to its own advantage and has been convicted of defrauding its own customers. Bell, in particular, has misbehaved so badly that public opinion of the company and its practices is very poor. It remind me of the now widespread business practice of promoting misinformation on social media in order to influence public opinion.
 
#210 ·
Exactly not every illegally downloaded or streamed Movie/TV program/ Software/Song means that person would have ever bought it to begin with.

The movie and recording industry has been using those trumped up numbers for years with no actual evidence to back up their claims.

Yes, piracy affects sales and company profits but not to the made up numbers that the industry's lobby groups try to claim.

Corporate greed is the undoing of most of these companies and started long before Bit Torrent and streaming.
 
#211 ·
Never mind that the industries claiming losses are simultaneously attempting to deny the traditional rights and product usability of their potential customers. Owning a physical copy of a copyrighted product once granted the right to lend that copy to others. That is now being denied with digital copy protection. Owning a physical copy once granted it's use as long as the physical copy existed. That is now being denied by systematic technical obsolescence and the shutting down of digital license servers (usually due to company insolvency.) Copyrights once lasted 25 years. Now copyright holders are attempting to extend copyrights almost indefinitely. The copyright act once allowed the use of small portions for inclusion in larger artistic works. Copyright owners now want that use denied. The use of copyrighted materials was once allowed for academic research. That is now being denied. Even worse, research of digital protection schemes can (and has) resulted in the arrest of academic researchers. Those are just the issues I can think of off the top of my head.

Then there is the larger issue of actual copyright ownership. Many works were stolen from their creators under existing copyright laws. The issue with "Happy Birthday" is probably the most prominent but there are many more egregious examples that number in the many, many thousands. Such practices were once common practice in the entertainment industry. Most of today's large media companies exist due to shady business practices that include filing false copyright claims or de facto stealing of the copyrights to works and performances. Now the worm has turned and they cry "poor us" as they walk away with millions in profits from copyrights that rightfully belonged to artists that died in, or due to, poverty.

Do I care if big media companies are experiencing losses due to piracy? Not really. Once they compensate the poor, the impoverished and dead (how is that done?), I might give a tiny tear. Today's big media companies were built on theft and deceit. Now they are simply using technology, lobbyists and lawyers to do to consumers what they did to artists in the past.
 
#212 ·
But the opposite argument of "never was going to buy it anyway" can be made, where piracy leads to a double-dip loss.

For example, if I were to pirate a 2-hour movie, that 2-hour period may have been spent watching something legally obtained, therefore skewing viewership numbers or sales for the legally obtainable program.

I also know many people who get really upset (mostly on sporting events) who have Kodi boxes and the feed goes down or is of poor quality - these people generally paid to watch the event prior to switching to Kodi, paid for the Kodi device, and want to watch the programming - if they didn't care about the program, they would have watched something else instead of complaining they couldn't get their game.

I can understand their are valid points on both sides of the argument - truth and facts will eventually come out over time. TV itself is barely 80 years old (and probably only 50-60 years of quality widespread use), the internet is young at about 20-25 years of widespread use - technology will change, usage will change, entertainment will change, and in 20-30 years someone will read this conversation and it will be laughable how dated it is once some other form of media dominates the market with similar questions. Just read a Popular Science or Popular Mechanics magazine from 20-30 years ago and it is laughable (BTW, you can read full issues free on Google Books back to the early days of these magazines if you ever need a tech-related laugh).

I'm old enough to remember the same debate of copying Commodore VIC-20 cassettes and Beta tapes...even the debate if using your VCR to tape a show off of your OTA antenna was legal, or taping a song off the radio...over time they became acceptable (even legally), the industry changed, technology changed, and consumer habits changed.
 
#213 ·
We've paid for piracy via taxes, they were introduced on blank cassette tapes, that were certain to kill the recording industry, we've been taxed on blank cd/dvd media for the same reason, the next step will be a "Net tax" to punish every consumer for the wrongs of a few.

One of the most disturbing episodes I've seen of a national geographic US channel series "LOCKDOWN" featured some poor schlub sentenced to 10 years for "internet piracy", he wasn't an uploader, just a repeat downloader.....America has always been a crony capitalist haven, it's become much worse in the last decade with "Citizens United" legislation geared toward outright buying of laws by special interests.

These laws are then strong armed diplomatically throughout the world, all because some asshat in Texas took a few hundred thousand from a lobbyist representing a special interest to get elected. Ted Cruz is probably one of the greatest examples of pay for play, he's on both sides of the fence, wife works at Goldman Sachs and he pretends to be a constitutionalist with free speech but has zero problems with regulating the internet and providing an advantage to the major carriers who are his biggest donors.

Bev Fan is a troll, he posts media releases against piracy ad naseum, quotes suspect articles, and doesn't care one whit for facts, in his opinion Bell/Rogers/Shaw are doing great work representing Canadian interests while the reality is they all get HUGE tax breaks paid for by US to produce feces like "Border Secuity", "Big Brother Canada" etc.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/art...ubsidizing-reality-tv-drivel/article32240712/
 
#214 ·
Bev Fan is a troll [/url]
agreed, why I just put that nick on the ignore list... Whoala..No more bev_fan

The internet is so full of blogger nonsense paid for by special interests, it is nearly completely useless as a form of information.
want to learn something? read a book...
 
#216 ·
For example, if I were to pirate a 2-hour movie, that 2-hour period may have been spent watching something legally obtained, therefore skewing viewership numbers or sales for the legally obtainable program.
But chances are that person will not pay for anything they watch. There are many free sources of entertainment. (If I run an ad blocker to view ad supported content without ads is that also piracy?) A lot of it is about timing. Do people want to wait another 6 months for a movie that is in the theaters? Do they want to go to a theater and put up with poor projection and bad sound (compared to their home system), sticky seats and noisy theater goers? If the answer is no to both and the movie can be pirated, guess what will happen?

BTW, there is another category of pirate that was discovered. Let's call them the previewer. Tired of being deceived by misleading promos and biased industry supported reviews, they would rather "preview" the material before making a purchase. This is especially true for music. The industry countered that with inexpensive streaming services and cheaper prices (at least outside Canada since high domestic prices are still predominant.)

As to sports, I would never pay the ridiculous rates to see some events. I won't put up with the bombardment of advertising and the hacked up presentation on channels like TSN either. So I go without. The same goes for movies and TV shows. I'll wait until I can borrow the DVD, see it on an ad free movie channel or watch it on an OTT service.
 
#218 ·
That's quite easy to do legally. Just buy a radio, TV and antenna. That's how it was done 50 years ago. Granted, cable was available in some cities but it cost well under $10/mo. (Cable TV subscriptions were under $10/mo until the late 1970s.) There were many years in my childhood and young adulthood where I didn't even own a TV. There was no way to rent, record or copy video without extremely expensive studio grade equipment. If people don't want to pay then buying a pirate TV box is not the answer. It just shows a lack of character, imagination and honesty. Many employers would refuse to hire someone with such poor personal integrity.
 
#219 · (Edited)
Of course, Canadian OTA television is stifled by not only our vertical integration, but the CRTC's blatant discouragement of using digital subchannels on television stations to provide a wider variety of services over-the-air, as in the United States and United Kingdom. In turn, the vertically-integrated broadcast industry feels that it is more important to steer people towards their subscription-based walled garden rather than give users choice.

Personally, I'd just change the rules to allow digital subchannels to be added without CRTC permission, but only if they are being used to broadcast content from a third-party service that otherwise meets the definition of a Category B specialty channel (but maybe with a higher Canadian content requirement)
 
#221 ·
So are you (emmy) suggesting because someone would never buy something if they obtain it illegally there is no loss. I would never buy a pair of Prada shoes. Lets see if the next time I am in Saks, Nordstroms or Holt Renfrews whether they accept that logic. The sense of entitlement and unwillingness of people to accept that because they can't afford something that they won't see or get it.
 
#222 ·
That is not what I said and is the same stupid logic that the MPAA and RIAA have been trying to use for years.

The correct comparison would be an example of just because I heard a song on the radio for free doesn't mean I'm going to run to Itunes or simliar to purchase it.

And if you had actually read what I wrote you would have seen that I said yes piracy and streaming contributes to some profit loss but not to the extent that has been claimed for years.

Instead you just spew out the same garbage that BEV Fan does, with zero real proven facts to ever back up that position.
 
#223 ·
This thread is about people who purchase android boxes and stream free (illegal) TV/Movie programming. The people who do this are mostly pirates and thieves. They are only happy when they get stuff for free.

I know of few people who have these boxes and utilize them for purely legitimate purposes. (I spent over a decade optimizing Home Theatres and saw what was on these boxes). As mentioned before, most of these people may never be happy and never would pay for services, but a percentage would pay if this "free" (and illegal) method were unavailable.

You're right that the "losses calculated" may be overestimated, however, they are still very significant and if not stopped in some way would contribute to less available programming since the rights are not paid.
 
#225 ·
#229 ·
The one thing I'm always curious about is why anyone would want to share/broadcast pirated content - I don't understand what the net benefit is to someone is that shares say a channel like TSN on the internet.

You would need to invest in equipment, spend a lot on having a pipe that can handle sending out the data, and probably actually pay for the channel to broadcast it - in return, what do you get? Just some odd satisfaction of pulling a fast one on some big media company?

The only benefit I can see is if you operate some sort of sim-subbing operations where you replace TSN's commercials with mail-order bride, male enhancement pills, sports gambling, and other sketchy advertising.

The supply source of these pirated channels has always been something I cannot understand...
 
#231 ·
I am definitely against Piracy, and I am also in favour of reducing the cost of TV subscriptions as well. I also am aware that the more people pirate TV shows and movies, the more it will have an economic effect on jobs here in Canada. My best friend works in the TV and Film industry and its a big issue, they have meetings about it weekly and they admit there have been job losses and can you image one of those people who lost their job is someone who was making monthly payments to their mortgage and could not find a replacement job cus no one wants to hire here and he had to sell his house and down size to a crowded apartment or risk losing it to the bank. I definately am in favour of creating more stable Canadian jobs in the Television industry, and cheap subscription tv service is not really helping with that.
 
#232 ·
I believe a simple solution exists to combating piracy. Consumers want affordable, quality content. When prices increase for cable TV subscriptions, consumers look to other means for entertainment such as streaming pirated content. I believe that consumers will choose legal content at the right price point over poor quality pirated content.

Governments of all stripes learned this important lesson when they increased the taxes on tobacco. Smuggling of contraband product skyrocketed. Same logic can be applied to conventional cable TV subscriptions. Therefore the solution is less complicated than we make it. Provide affordable quality content to subscribers and the problem will largely take care of itself. A good first start would be true pick and pay without any base package required. More competition would also help.
 
#234 ·
Gentleman and Paolo, sorry, you make it sound so easy. So the companies finally offer true pick and pay. Everybody halves their bill at once= company going broke=channels cancelled(special interest groups up in arms)+ no money to produce new content=more dwindling subscribers= shut the doors...
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top