Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

Yeah Right

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123578661#Comment_123578661

No, you're coming at it from the wrong POV.

It's like the Hollywood producers saying "those 50 empty seats cost €20 each, therefore the pirates who are watching at home are costing me €1k per showing, multiplied by 8 showings per day, means they're costing us €56k per week in lost revenue".

If the lads weren't pirating, they wouldn't necessarily be paying €20 to go and see it in the pictures. Some might, but most would just miss out. You can't count 'people who aren't here' in your debtors column.

Rocket_GD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123578661#Comment_123578661

That's not a valid comparison at all really.

Majority of IPTV customers don't pay for tv at all and IF (never will happen) all IPTV was to go down, these people aren't going to flock to SKY to sign up for tv packages as Sky are essentially saying by claiming that they're losing revenue. They are claiming that these 400k would be Sky customers without IPTV, they wouldn't be. They'll just go find another work around eg streams.

Using your analogy it's more like the cinema saying to people who have no interest in going to the cinema saying you should be paying for our service that you don't want as we've empty seats.

SteM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123578661#Comment_123578661

Not really, because no one is asking for Sky's permission to stream the product but someone is asking permission to enter the cinema in your example.

It's more like sneaking in through the fire exit and finding an empty seat.

And then telling people around you what you did.

And then finding out half of the people in the cinema have done the same thing including a few of the local gardai.

😉

Wanderer78

i think we re onto something folks, a free for all cinema, maybe we could get sky to sponsor it!

dxhound2005

The vast majority of those who sneak into the cinema, would not pay to go to the cinema. The cinema is not losing any money.

Apothic_Red

After I binned off Sky i ran with a FTA/Saorview box for herself, I only watched sport so streams did me. The occasional box set could be downloaded to USB then played off the TV media player.

The only reason I took up IPTV is cause it came with access to a complete up to date Plex server, like every streaming package rolled into one. Now if herself wants to watch The Mormon Housewives of Desperate County she doesn't have to come near me.

If that got shut down in the morning I would just revert back to freesat, Sky wouldn't see a penny.

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123578661#Comment_123578661

It's not the same thing at all.

The IPTV user doesn't have all the perks you get with Sky.

It's similar to watching the movie on your TV.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123578977#Comment_123578977

whats the perks?

eagle eye

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123578999#Comment_123578999

They get to see the movie.

Wanderer78

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123579017#Comment_123579017

can also be done on other platforms including iptv

jmcc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123577679#Comment_123577679

That is the kind of flawed argument that is often used by technology journalists who know little about Technology and even less about piracy. The dodgybox differs from conventional piracy in that it depends on the use of a paid subscription to provide the content. The user of a dodgybox is therefore paying a much lower amount to access the content than the legitimate subscriber to Sky et al. The dodgybox user has no legal contract with Sky to access the content. The dodgybox user is infringing Sky's intellectual property rights. That's where things get very murky.

When the legislation dealing with this kind of piracy was being formulated, some of the lobbyists wanted to criminalise the personal use of devices used tp pirate channels. I know this because I discussed the matter with some of them, with broadcasters and with people in the Conditional Access side of the industry. The main argument against this was that criminalising potential customers would be bad for business as broadcasters wanted subscribers. This was at a time when Sky's smartcards were completely hacked and it was possible to buy pirate smartcards. These pirated smartcards generally lasted for a few years before Sky replaced them. When they were replaced, some people who had been using pirate smartcards subscribed again. There was a delay between the introduction of a new smartcard by Sky and the emergence of a working pirate smartcard. Typically, it was a few months. Sky made their newer smartcards more difficult to hack and also concentrated on taking the key players and distributors out of the market. There was no EU-wide legislation at the time and that made it possible for an operation in one EU country to target the broadcasters of another.

EU-wide legislation introduced and it was also enacted into Irish law. It focuses on the distribution of devices and publication of software to bypass the broadcaster encryption. The problem for Sky with dodgyboxes is that they are not inherently illegal. Satellite TV receivers, smart TVs, tablets, laptops, USB dongles of various descriptions all have legitimate uses. It is more effective for Sky and FACT to take legal action against a reseller or distributor rather than an individual. Taking out a reseller or network operator can stop hundreds or thousands of people pirating a broadcaster's content. Taking legal action against an individual only stops the individual from pirating the content. The costs of these legal actions are an issue because Sky is a business. The long term profit of turning a dodgybox user into a subscriber, even on the most basic tier, is better than no subscription at all. That's the commerical reality of Pay-TV. The key word is "Pay".

Regards…jmcc

dxhound2005

Taking out a crime boss organising gangs of shoplifters will close down their activity. But taking out individual shoplifters can also lead to the identification of the crime boss, and is obviously a link in the chain of evidence.

irishgeo

All these people saying people who won't go back to Sky if IPTV stopped dead in the morning. They might go to the pub and watch Sky which would generate revenue for them

IPTV is basically someone selling stolen cars on the cheap.

The streamers haven't produced the car or done the R&D. They are stealing cars after the production line and are selling them.

The EU is the reason we have multiple TV companies bidding and winning the rights. Sky used to have all the rights but this was declared a monopoly and they had to split them so no one company can win them all.

All of these people hugging their VPN like it is some sort of invisiblity cloak. The best hackers in the world get caught out because of VPN leaks or mistakes.

VPN are not the safe haven you think they are.

You are unlikely to be caught sure but that doesn't mean your IPTV provider will be so lucky.

As for the people using IPTV on Sky own ISP your just asking for trouble for your provider. Either by blocks or legal trouble.

jmcc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123579329#Comment_123579329

You don't understand the Pay-TV business. Taking out the operator of a dodgybox network takes out that network. In one move, hundreds or thousands of dodgybox users are left without content. That temporarily stops the copyright infringement by those dodgybox users.

The shoplifter analogy completely ignores the fact that shoplifting generally applies to physical items while copyright infringement via dodgyboxes does not. One subscription can be used to feed thousands of dodgyboxes. One item stolen by a shoplifter is still one item.

Regards…jmcc

dxhound2005

The cinema analogy can be extended. For the time being the regular cinema goers keep the business open. But as they get to know the way the freeloaders can get in without paying, the regulars stop paying as well. In the end the cinema will have to close. The freeloaders will blame the regulars for spoiling their fun. Of course if the cinema brought down their price to a sensible €1, there would not be as many freeloaders.

BP_RS3813

Charging affordable prices? Fat chance of that. From some managers point of view its the consumers fault that they are not willing to pay bs prices and it never occurs to them that their prices are the problem.

dxhound2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123579382#Comment_123579382

That is where the Shop Lifting analogy holds true. The Shop Lifters steal, because the prices in the shops are too high.

Kat1170

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123579395#Comment_123579395

Ehhhhhh, I think you'll find it's because the drugs are too expensive 😂

FazyLucker

What this thread needs is more hyperbolic analogies…

The one about comparing dodgy boxes to stolen cars sold on the cheap is the best yet, I mean its totally comparable between somebody sitting at home and putting nobody at risk vs somebody out on the road putting everybody at risk.

Keep the terrible analogies coming…

FazyLucker

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123578596#Comment_123578596

Its possible that its just that, but they'd need a good few subscriptions to hold as Clubber don't allow simultaneous streaming.

jmcc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123579395#Comment_123579395

Gangs of shoplifters steal because it is a business for them. You probably didn't mean that. The reason why the shoplifting analogy is a bad one is because shoplifting has to do with tangible items and dodgyboxes have to do with intangible items (intellectual property rights).

Regards…jmcc

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123579509#Comment_123579509

The analogies are getting dodgier than the boxes.