[ExDilbert]

This ruling won't stop piracy, it will only drive it further underground. Personally, I like the fact that these Android box sellers are being stopped. They are just making money from people who don't know how to configure the boxes themselves. Anyone can do it with any PC, Android box or even a phone. I don't condone it or do it myself but I don't see why the scumbags doing it for profit should get away with it.

 

[ExDilbert]

Operating such a website in Canada is probably also illegal. Never mind that's what Android box sellers are doing themselves. Legal Android TV boxes are already available from many sources. The illegal Android box sellers just buy cheap Android boxes from China, install the pirating software from a site that already exists, then sell the Android box for a big markup. It's a quick and dirty profit for them.

 

[ExDilbert]

It's only the pirating add-ons and the sites that stream pirated programming that are illegal. Android boxes and Kodi without the pirating add-ons are legal.

 

[ExDilbert]

Generic Android boxes can be purchased from retailers and etailers such as eBay, Amazon or local stores. They range from almost junk (don't play some video well or at all) that receive almost no support to fairly powerful, well supported devices that handle most video formats. (Recorded ATSC OTA TV video is a good test.) Almost all will support the official version of Kodi and it's variants. I'd recommend a box with at least Android 4.4 or higher. It has significant improvements over earlier versions. Part of the problem with pirate TV boxes, from a consumer viewpoint, is that they may not be the best quality and may not be supported. Installing pirate TV add-ons is not recommended but it's hard to argue against free TV. There are other ways to get TV that are legal, cheap or free and less risky.

 

[ExDilbert]

The problem is that finding alternatives requires work and patience. Work to find them and patience while waiting for them to show up on streaming sites like Netflix. Even then, not all content becomes available in all regions. When content owners make their products affordable and easily accessible for everyone, the piracy problem will be solved. They already understand this but insist on inflating prices with price fixing in more affluent regions. The studios practically gave away movies in China to combat piracy. Even when they explore more efficient ways to distribute their content in NA, they keep prices at artificially high levels and pocket the savings rather than passing them on to consumers.

 

[ExDilbert]

That may be almost true in the US but it's a gross exaggeration for Canada. Even if it were true, it would require half a dozen streaming boxes and half a dozen service subscriptions to even get close to what you are claiming. Then there is the issue of paying up to $60 per TV season or $30 per movie to buy items that may or may not be available for streaming at a later date.

I'm not condoning piracy or making excuses. I'm just explaining why human nature causes some people to pirate content when cartels conspire to unnecessarily restrict its availability. (Not even governments can successfully restrict the availability of what people want. All they do is create organized crime.) Do people want to spend hours searching for a show or movie to watch or do they just want to find a show easily and enjoy some TV? Legitimate service providers are still making the latter too difficult and unreasonably expensive. The fact that piracy is so prevalent is proof of that.

 

[ExDilbert]

We watch most TV series and movies once. Later viewings, if at all, are a year or more later. About half of them we stop watching after one or two episodes or as little at 15 minutes. Does anyone want to spend $20 or $50 for 15 minutes of viewing displeasure? Buying is not an option, especially since modern formats may not allow viewing 5 years or even 1 year later. At least my meager collection of DVDs still play after 5 or 10 years but there is no such guarantee for highly encrypted content.

I've tried Netflix. Sorry, that's also not a good option. There is enough new content to keep me happy for about 1 or 2 months a year. I tried looking for crime dramas in December. About 90% of the results consisted of low budget Spanish movies with only 2 new movies worth watching. The same goes for stand up comedy which is missing a lot of US titles and has a lot of low budget Australian and Canadian filler. Netflix has turned into yet another Canadian specialty Canadian station filled with low budget junk. Some of their original content is quite good but like many specialty stations, there is not enough to warrant a high priced year long subscription.

 

[ExDilbert]

What I want to do is watch new content commercial free and for a small fee at the same time as it is released on TV or at the theater. That can be on a series, episode or subscription basis. That is rarely available. It's a model that would not be difficult to implement. I believe HBO does this with their US service and Netflix essentially does it with their original content. The studios have experimented with this in the past but it's not widely available. Now that most older adults have abandoned movie theaters and younger adults are not to subscribing traditional broadcasting services, it makes sense. As usual, the broadcasting industry is years behind modern trends. It's just too bad that many people resort to piracy to fill the gap. Broadcasters and studios should be developing ways to turn this into a marketing opportunity, not a way of punishing people who want to consume their products.

 

[ExDilbert]

Intellectual property deserves compensation but it isn't in the same class of property as a physical object.

That's an old school of thought that also results in light sentences for so called "white collar" crime. Stealing anything of worth can result in the same impact as stealing physical objects.

Intellectual theft is no different. Small movie makers may go bankrupt and thousands of people lose their jobs or not be able to find one. Less money is available for movie or TV show production so creativity is stifled and quality goes down. To pay for losses due to piracy, more advertising is inserted into content making the viewing experience less enjoyable. Meanwhile, the big studios just cut costs, raise their prices and continue to absorb smaller companies that cannot make a profit. The result is an entertainment oligarchy that is powerful enough to control worldwide distribution channels, fix prices and sway governments into passing punitive, anti-consumer laws. No victims?! We are all victims.

 

[ExDilbert]

The bottom line is that content owners want regionalism and they base their business model on it. Even DVDs and BDs, that are sold globally by the studios, are marketed regionally. That way they can sell a movie for $1 in Asia, where they are trying to eliminate a serious piracy problem due to weak copyright laws, and $20 in NA and Europe where they know the market will bear it.

Competition for rights in countries like Canada inflate the price of content while countries with less competition get it cheaper. The fault is our own for creating an environment with rich broadcasters that bid up royalties and pass the costs on to consumers with impunity. As much as I like services like Netflix, we have to realize that it plays into the studios' business model of driving up prices by creating more competition for a product that has limited supply. The only positive it that Netflix puts pressure on Canadian broadcasters to compete at the low end of the market. As long has Canadian broadcasters have a majority market share, studios will act as a cartel to inflate prices in Canada.

 

[ExDilbert]

Sale of Android Boxes With "Free TV" Add-ons Is Now Illegal in Canada

This thread is poorly named and should be changed. It's not only inaccurate, it also misrepresents and defames the KODI project. The new law is not about KODI, it's about the "Free TV" add-ons that Android TV box resellers are installing.

The Piracy Box Sellers and YouTube Promoters Are Killing Kodi

 

[ExDilbert]

If Kodi wasn't available on Android, the "free TV" promoters would use some other software to market their wares. The only reason Kodi is used is because its such a well written piece of software that the pirates picked it for writing their programs. Saying Kodi is the problem is like saying Edge, Firefox or Chrome browsers are the problem because they allow people to access illegal downloads or streams on Windows. The real problem is that criminals are subverting software and hardware intended for legal uses and making a healthy profit by doing so. Never mind that they are enticing people to break copyright laws by offering these products.

 

[ExDilbert]

They will basically target unauthorized live and other streams that are delivered by Kodi or other means like IPTV.

Just to be clear, KODI does not deliver the content and neither does Android or Windows. They are merely (legal) tools to watch video, listen to music or to engage in thousands of other activities. It is the servers that are hosting and delivering pirated content. It's the servers that are being targeted in the UK plan. The UK has laws in place that make ISPs and proxy services track internet usage by their customers and to make ISPs block the internet addresses used by servers hosting some types of illegal content. Canadian ISPs and proxy services must track user activities but they are not required to block any internet addresses, yet.

 

[ExDilbert]

"Stream your favourite shows and movies with the Seiki Media Streaming Box".

And you can using the Android CTV, CBC, CITY, Global, Netflix and Crackle apps plus many other apps. They are all perfectly legal but subscriptions may be required.

Kodi also has a number of official plugins for streaming from sites such as YouTube, HDTV Canada and a number of other sites and stations that provide 100% legal, sometimes free, streams. Some are geo-blocked or require a subscription. Some are from Europe.

 

[ExDilbert]

The UK has laws in place that compel ISPs to block sites that deal in illegal activities. It was originally meant to combat things like child porn but wouldn't be difficult to extend to things like illegal downloads or streaming. Even UK based proxy companies must comply with the law.

Here is a link to an article on the reaction to Android TV boxes in the UK.

 

[ExDilbert]

ESPN is in trouble? Cry me a river.

Same here. It's obvious that ESPN's problems are caused by greed. That goes for Canadian sports networks and teams as well. I resent the way sports stations are forced on consumers in big bundles. They are overpriced and I can't stand the way the games are chopped up by commercials. TSN should be renamed the The Advertising Channel to conform with truth in advertising. When the big leagues get past their exploitation of fans, players, and broadcasters and go back to concentrating on the game then maybe they will be worth watching again. Until that happens, we are likely to see more OTT services and more cord cutting.

 

[ExDilbert]

Let's get real. Bell's plan is a highly regulated IPTV product, not an OTT product like Hulu or HBO Go. There is no comparison between these services. In addition, at $100/mo, the Bell service is no cord cutter's bargain. As usual, Bell is lying about their offerings in order to distort the marketplace.

Now, let's get back on topic.

 

[ExDilbert]

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.

 

[ExDilbert]

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.

 

[ExDilbert]

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.