Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

Nigzcurran

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123602750#Comment_123602750

Is that fubo your subscribed to?

HUGHSHERIDAN

He’s not in the tv business any more

TerrieBootson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123600649#Comment_123600649

I'm probably an extreme outlier here, but I have no interest in English football channels, and have a freeview dish. The IPTV in our house is used for watching channels from our home country, which are not on Sky etc

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123603399#Comment_123603399

No no no. You're still a robbing scumbag who should be jailed. Rules are rules. Your whole family too. No exceptions 👀

dxhound2005

Good call.

TerrieBootson

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123603577#Comment_123603577

Absolutely. I have already lubed up for my punishment

jj880

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123604341#Comment_123604341

Dx at parties:

Johnboy1951

There are several things repeated in this thread that I have a problem with.

1. Theft, Stealing and even Robbery are oft mentioned in relation to viewing unlawful streams. My understanding of theft is that it deprives someone of something. The viewer of the unlawful stream is not depriving the owner of that stream, so presumably a different law applies rather than theft.
2. I expect, but again do not KNOW, that such behaviour would fall under a law governing rights issues.

As irishgeo outlines in this post
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123598583/#Comment_123598583

operating as a provider of such streams is most definitely illegal, but no one has mentioned what the current law is regarding viewing such streams, or indeed under which Act they could be prosecuted.

That then brings up another question which was touched on by this post
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123603399/#Comment_123603399
If someone has a 'dodgybox' subscription, and uses it to watch FTA channels (Just as could be watched by using a satellite disk and aerial in Ireland) under what Act could they be prosecuted?

The 'dodgybox' is not illegal, but has the potential to be used for unlawful purposes. My phone, laptop, PC and lots of other devices have similar (and IMO greater) potential.
My car has the potential to break speed limits too.

There is no law that I am aware of (open to correction) that can be used to prosecute a person based on the potential of the device they own.

So for what is the viewer of a stream through a 'dodgybox' to be prosecuted. (yes I would genuinely like to know)
If that person has viewed, for instance, a PL game, how can it be known or proven unless directly observed, and even then what law would make that illegal?

So, IMO, there is a lot of very 'loose' talk of illegality yet no one (that I have noticed) has pointed to the specific act that governs the viewing of those FTA channels or that PL game, making it prosecutable in court.

I think everyone who uses, or potentially uses, a 'dodgybox' should know if they are breaking the law; what law that is; and what are the consequences of breaking that law as written (if it exists).

If I drive over the speed limit or break other traffic regulations I have a good idea what the consequences might be.

Surely all the 'dodgybox' users should be equally informed?

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123605955#Comment_123605955

I suppose 1 argument against using it for fta channels is that it deprives rte, virgin or Tg4 of the ad revenue as their viewership will look lower than it actually is?

Johnboy1951

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123606192#Comment_123606192

Probably, but that is not an action of thievery or robbery, which leads back to me wondering under which law a 'dodgybox' viewer can be prosecuted.
I understand there is a threat of supporting criminal behaviour if one pays the stream provider, but what if I watch the 'dodgy' stream at a friend's house? Have I also committed an offense? Under what statute could I be prosecuted?

dxhound2005

Why not look it up instead of wondering?

irishgeo

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123606257#Comment_123606257

Because they want to keep believing that they are not breaking the law despite everyone saying they are.

Its similar to the flat earthers they just can't be convinced otherwise.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123606257#Comment_123606257

Possibly because what doesn't exist can't be found.

xhomelezz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123606279#Comment_123606279

Flat earthers ...

I don't really care if it is legal, or illegal. If I choose to, I pay less than 14 bucks a month for a shítload of life channels, hbo channels, max included. Perfectly legal. Now what is the sky subscription worth a month?

jj880

Now its flat earthers supporting a vast criminal network 🤣

Some on this thread really are finding IPTV a hard pill to swallow.

I have also yet to see this legislation "everyone" has been telling us about.

kurt_angle

there’s no such thing as a dodgy box whatsoever. It’s some made up term by the media. Windows, Linux, Android, IOS, LG and Samsung TVs is, Mac OS can all run IPTV software.

Firestick and Android boxes are the most popular however due to cost. As others have said Sky is full of bloatware and channels you never watch. Just offer subscription services for sports and keep it at the same price as broadband max 40 euro a month and plenty would pay it.

dulpit

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123606308#Comment_123606308

Not legal. At a minimum. Breaching terms of service.

I have a hbo sub from Costa rica. I used have Indian youtube premium and Turkish Netflix. Handy? Yes. Cheaper? Also yes. Legal? I wouldn't have thought so.

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123606541#Comment_123606541

That would be a civil matter.

dxhound2005

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123606300#Comment_123606300

I went looking anyway, using Google to ask if using a dodgy box is illegal. The first result that came up is from a site called Extra.ie. And it says it is illegal under the Copyright Act 2000. It is just a media opinion not a legal one, but based on the premise that the dodgy box service was supplied to the user by an "unofficial" provider for gain.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/28/enacted/en/print.html

I put the question in a few different forms. "Is owning a dodgy box in Ireland illegal?" gets 188,000 results on Google. So it definitely can be found. I also asked if Sky are doing anything illegal by setting their charges so high. The answer to that one is No.

xhomelezz

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123606541#Comment_123606541

Of course my live channels are legal subscription, buying from Czech provider . There you go, you can buy it yourself too

https://www.xn--lep-tma39c.tv/en/

John arse

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123607120#Comment_123607120

Might be worth Czeching out?😁

jmcc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123606367#Comment_123606367

There is a much simpler explanation: technology journalists upon whom people rely for their information simply don't know about piracy and its history.

The original dodgyboxes were official set-top boxes for digital TV that had their operating systems modified. One of the TV services that was using them went bankrupt and a lot of these easily modified boxes hit the market. They had ethernet connections so they could be connected to a network and to the Internet and thus use a keystream from a legitimate subscription. The boxes also continued to be manufactured and sold. People at the time largely used dial-up Internet. That involved paying per minute for the call. That helped limit the impact on the broadcasters because intead of paying the broadcaster, the dodgybox user was paying the telephone company. It was not a 24/7 piracy problem as it would become with always-on broadband.

The PCs at the time were only just powerful enough to run the software necessary to run a satellite TV receiver board that could fit into a slot on the PC's motherboard. These satellite TV boards still required a satellite TV dish and LNB. That was where some of the early software based players emerged. These boxes, like the Android boxes and Firesticks that succeeded them, also had legitimate uses and the network aspect was a feature. There was a common design for the module (the Conditional Access Module) that allowed the smartcard to be used by a box. It was pushed by the industry in the mid 1990s as the solution for the digital TV services that were taking over from the analogue TV services. This CAM was often emulated in software.

Sky always stuck with its own design for this module to make it more difficult to emulate them in software. A common design meant that the specifications were published and that meant that the hacking process was accelerated because much of the research that would have been necessary was freely available. The previous approach to hacking a system involved reverse engineering decoders, their operation, data protocol and decryption process. A common design meant that a kind of musketeer hack (one for all and all for one) was possible that would work on all services using that design. That worried Sky, which had a massive piracy problem due to pirate smartcards (early and mid 1990s), and a lot of people in the industry at the time. A later version of this common interface was supposed to be more hardware based and was supposed to make it more difficult to emulate in software. The rise of broadband changed things dramatically and removed the need for a satellite TV installation.

The IPTV versions were the next generation. Bandwidth was still a problem back then as ADSL and cable broadband (late 1990s for Europe and nearly mid 2000s for Ireland due to politicians who allowed Telecom Eireann to be sold off and repeatedly plundered. Cablelink, the predecessor of UPC and Virgin actually demonstrated cable broadband in 1998 and Telecom Eireann were testing ADSL in the late 1990s. As is the usual pattern of events, gombeen politicians got involved and made a mess of things.

Cablelink was owned by RTE and Telecom Eireann and many of its networks were not good enough for broadband. That delayed the rollout of broadband in Ireland for about 5 years until UPC bought Cablelink, upgraded its networks and began to rollout cable broadband in the main cities. When ADSL and cable broadband became widepread in Ireland, IPTV became viable. Both ADSL and cable broadband are typically asymmetric in that the upload bandwidth is lower than the download bandwidth. Making a feed available from a subscription often involved multiple broadband connections. As bandwidth increased, the quality and numbers of these feeds increased. Cable broadband was more efficient than ADSL (phone line) broadband for such operations.

Ease of use was important. Connecting a PC or laptop to a TV was problematic for most people. The TVs also became more complex and smarter. Android boxes, Firesticks and other USB devices became available. They were easier to connect to TVs. They just became plug and play. This is when it became more of a software (hardware independent) problem for the broadcasters. The IPTV services on which dodgyboxes and such software rely are part of an technological evolution.

Regards…jmcc

dxhound2005

That 5 year delay from 1994 did not make much difference. The speeds achievable back then were very slow compared to what came later. (NTL = UPC).

"In 1999, the NTL Group paid RTE and Eircom €680m for Cablelink at the peak of the dotcom bubble."

jmcc

This is the EU Conditional Access directive as enacted in Irish law.

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/si/357/made/en/print

This is the relevant second on offences:

"

3.       (1)        A person who -
		(a)      for commercial purposes -
		(i)        manufactures, imports, distributes, sells, rents or possesses, or
		(ii)       installs, maintains or replaces,
		illicit devices, or
		(b)      uses commercial communications (including all forms of advertising, direct marketing, sponsorship, sales promotion and public relations) to promote illicit devices,
		is guilty of an offence.

"

The directive dates from the late 1990s and one clue is that it does not specifically mention IPTV services. Instead, it mentions "illicit devices". That was because the most common device at the time was a pirate smartcard or pirate decoder. The directive's definition of "illicit device" does cover software:

		“illicit device” means any equipment or software designed or adapted to give access to a protected service in an intelligible form without the authorisation of the protected service provider concerned;

The problem for the broadcasters is this:

.       (1)        A person who -
		(a)      for commercial purposes -

In a simple interpretation, that applies to the operator or reseller rather than to the end-user. The legislation is strong enough to deal with the operators or resellers. Other legislation may also apply.

Regards…jmcc

Johnboy1951

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123606876#Comment_123606876

Try asking the real question …

Is viewing a stream from a 'dodgy' provider illegal under Irish law, and if so under what legislation, and which part of that legislation?

This is the answer I get:-

Unsettled Law: The specific issue of whether merely viewing a stream (as opposed to downloading or distributing it) constitutes a copyright infringement has not been definitively settled by Irish statute or case law. Some legal commentary notes that private consumers of streamed films from illegal portals "appear not to be breaking the law," but this is not a settled legal position and could change with future cases or legislation.

Also I got this:-

Based on the available information, there is no reported case in Ireland where an individual viewer—who was not sharing or reselling, but merely paid for access to an illegal streaming service—has been prosecuted or convicted.

jmcc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123607376#Comment_123607376

The five year delay applied to the period between the privatisation of Telecom Eireann in 1999 and approximately 2004 when ADSL broadband began to become widely available in Ireland. Eircom was repeatedly plundered and Eircom was not able to roll out broadband despite even having some wireless licences. UPC upgraded the old Cablelink networks so that they could handle broadband and telephony. Once cable broadband was launched, it took most of the broadband market away from Eircom in the cities. Cablelink only demonstated cable broadband in 1998 and apart from a small test in Dublin, it did not roll it out because its networks did not have the capabilities to offer broadband.

In 1994, the typical dial-up speed was around 28,800 Baud (roughly 28.8 kilo bits/second). That was a maximum bandwidth of about 2.8 KiloBytes/second on a good connection. It used to max out around 2.4 KB for technical reasons. The 56K modems didn't appear until the late 1990s. ISDN (64kb or 128kb using two phone lines) was a much more expensive option. The purchase of Cablelink made a lot of commerical sense because of its market share in the main cities. Ireland had one of the most developed cable TV markets in Europe in the 1980s and 1990s.

Regards…jmcc

Johnboy1951

Based on the information I posted above in
https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123607482/#Comment_123607482

it appears there is no basis for stating that the use of dodgy boxes is illegal, because no one has ever been before the courts charged with this.

It is my personal belief that some ammendment or new act is necessary to ensure a conviction on such a charge.

In the meantime anyone could be charged, but under what legislation? Nothing presently on the books appears to fit nicely.

EDIT:

I also got this …

Would New Legislation Be Needed?
Current law does not specifically criminalise the act of paying for and viewing infringing streams as a consumer. For clear, direct prosecution of viewers/subscribers, new or amended legislation would likely be required to unambiguously make this activity a criminal offence.

Enforcement and prosecutions have so far targeted operators, sellers, and facilitators of illegal streaming services, not end users

FishOnABike

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123606192#Comment_123606192

The number of viewers of DTTV or Freesat distributed channels can only be estimated from surveys. IPTV would be no different in this respect.

jmcc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123607536#Comment_123607536

With DTTV and Freesat, there are some other sources of information that can help such as the sales of devices capable of receiving those services. With IPTV, broadband use is a possible source of information. IPTV is much more difficult to measure because people are less likely say that they use such a service and more likely to say that they use Netflix or Prime.

Regards…jmcc

dxhound2005

Illicit Device pre-dated the EU regulation as a concept in law. The regulation is future proofed against people giving different names to illicit devices to circumvent the regulation.

https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/illicit-device