"Over 1m viewers could have access cut over illegal streaming"

frozenfrozen

I would pay a lot per month to be able to stream everything in decent quality, hard drives are expensive, downloading everything is not free even if you don't pay for it. I've been told Breaking bad takes up just under 1TiB when ripped from bluray. Could be the same price to store that as buy the boxset if you didn't go for low gb/$ drives.

mollser

I often think that I would happily pay say €50 per month for an all inclusive legit kodi service with access to literally everything.

Then the €50 could be divided up and paid to the content providers based on what you watched. So if a person just watched one football match in the month, it would get most of the 50. If a heavier user watched box set after box set, well then the 50 is split more ways. I think this would generally balance out vs a ppv model. Would also provide an income stream for older material/box sets.

Maybe you could have tiered rates for HD or > 100 hours of content or something.

Could this ever happen? Dream for me I must say and would seem reasonably equitable and could run alongside normal fta add and license fee funded linear channels. Any chance? ?

citytillidie

Taking it serious in the UK

5 people arrested for selling boxes with Kodi

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38906561

VinLieger wrote: »

Ipso facto..... so what you are saying is you can't point me to the law I am breaking?

The word copyright is the key word...As yet...Not one single person on this island has been prosecuted, doesn't mean you aren't still breaking the law.
The days of the industry chasing individuals for recompense are long over though, so feel free to stream away

srsly78

Wang Kerr wrote: »

The word copyright is the key word...As yet...Not one single person on this island has been prosecuted, doesn't mean you aren't still breaking the law.
The days of the industry chasing individuals for recompense are long over though, so feel free to stream away

No the key word is the part in the legislation that permits temporary copies to exist on disk without breaching copyright (specifically to cover streaming etc).

srsly78 wrote: »

No the key word is the part in the legislation that permits temporary copies to exist on disk without breaching copyright (specifically to cover streaming etc).

Afraid not, the material is stolen or otherwise gained illegally, you are streaming stolen material, you aren't covered by any legislation

srsly78

Well the courts don't agree with you, so please show otherwise! http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/illegality-of-viewing-streamed-content-is-far-from-certain-1.2967021

maudgonner

mollser wrote: »

Could this ever happen? Dream for me I must say and would seem reasonably equitable and could run alongside normal fta add and license fee funded linear channels. Any chance? ?

It would be difficult under the current model for funding TV production anyway. At the moment, RTE/BBC/Amazon/Netflix put up all/most of the money for a programme to be made, the quid-pro-quo being that they get the broadcast rights for their territory (or for an exclusivity period). Then the producers can sell off the remaining rights, usually at a much lower rate, to make a profit.

If the likes of RTE are no longer going to have exclusive first broadcast rights, they won't be willing to contribute nearly as much funding to the production, so either the streaming service would have to fund the shortfall (which gets complicated when there's more than one streaming service, as we have now), or the producers themselves will have to find the money, and hope to make it back from streaming deals. Most TV production companies aren't set up that way atm, and it would be a big change. Not impossible, and it may well be the only option, but difficult.

TV is expensive to make, so while a record label might be able to fund production of an album upfront and recoup the costs afterwards, it's not so easy for TV producers.

srsly78 wrote: »

Well the courts don't agree with you, so please show otherwise! http://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/illegality-of-viewing-streamed-content-is-far-from-certain-1.2967021

"transient and temporary" copies that are "incidental" to legal activities are not in violation. Intentionally watching a pirate stream wouldn't fall into that category I'm afraid

riclad

Not everyone has fast broadband, theres broadband caps, Cable tv or Satellite or freeview/ saorview broadcasting is more effecient than streaming all programs.Even if you pay a sky subscription theres programs that are just on hulu,or amazon or itunes
I don,t think everyone as a right to watch any program free.
People still read paper books and newspapers even though theres ereaders and news on the web.
I haven,t seen any app or program on a pc as easy to use as a sky remote with a tv.

Wang Kerr wrote: »

"transient and temporary" copies that are "incidental" to legal activities are not in violation. Intentionally watching a pirate stream wouldn't fall into that category I'm afraid

No it's Temporary. it's buffered in memory for a temporary amount of time. You don't actually receive a copy.

end of the road

Wang Kerr wrote: »

"transient and temporary" copies that are "incidental" to legal activities are not in violation. Intentionally watching a pirate stream wouldn't fall into that category I'm afraid

i'm afraid it would.

maudgonner

darkpagandeath wrote: »

No it's Temporary. it's buffered in memory for a temporary amount of time. You don't actually receive a copy.

You receive the data. It's perfectly possible to save video from a stream.

[Deleted User]

riclad wrote: »

..............
I haven,t seen any app or program on a pc as easy to use as a sky remote with a tv.

S how box ?
M ob d ro?

srsly78

Wang Kerr wrote: »

"transient and temporary" copies that are "incidental" to legal activities are not in violation. Intentionally watching a pirate stream wouldn't fall into that category I'm afraid

Yeah I think we will listen to the courts on that one, not yourself sorry.

maudgonner wrote: »

You receive the data. It's perfectly possible to save video from a stream.

Only if the stream is saved into memory entirely and not partially buffered. Depends on how it's streamed. It would be very difficult to save a video from Sky for example if you watch it on the Pc. it would be encrypted for example. Irish law is not clear on this at all. Microsoft lost a case against Ireland on Backups. Would not hold my breath on streaming being Illegal.

Hellrazer

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Would not hold my breath on streaming being Illegal.

They'll probably just do a Sean Sherlock on it like last time and give in to these studios.
He opened the door for court cases like this one.
I won't be stopping using Kodi,I didn't stop torrenting.
My ISP blocks these sites there are literally hundreds of proxies available.
Then there's a good VPN service as a way past it.

The movie studios etc need to move into the 21st century.
Give me the content I want when I want it and I'll gladly pay for it.But until then I'll be streaming and torrenting away.

scamalert

srsly78 wrote: »

Yeah I think we will listen to the courts on that one, not yourself sorry.

So what you reckon will happen,they block them three streaming sites,big deal isp's cant control every site,few days later new addon comes out with alternative stream servers and back isp's will need to monitor each site,this $hit eventually leads to monitoring and sniffing broadband of everyone.

Good thing we dont live in Nazi state like US ,where its seem's any privacy is non existent,people get sent to jail for decades for few songs over there,and letting them cnuts roll like that shows money buys info and enough money buys influence.

BlinkingLights

slavetothegrind wrote: »

The 1.3 million unique user figure is rediculous , court should have asked for proof or thrown out.

Of course this is a report in an irish paper so could be entirely unresearched and inaccurate.....

Given there are only 1.65 million households in Ireland, I find that figure very hard to believe.

Sounds more like they have taken the total fixed broadband number which is 1.34 million broadband lines (DSL, FTTC, FTTH, Cable and Fixed-Wireless)

I really do not believe that all Irish broadband subs are being used for unauthorised streaming.

srsly78 wrote: »

Yeah I think we will listen to the courts on that one, not yourself sorry.

And when it comes up in an irish court please feel free to let me know

BlinkingLights wrote: »

Given there are only 1.65 million households in Ireland, I find that figure very hard to believe.

Sounds more like they have taken the total fixed broadband number which is 1.34 million broadband lines (DSL, FTTC, FTTH, Cable and Fixed-Wireless)

I really do not believe that all Irish broadband subs are being used for unauthorised streaming.

I Wager someone like "Raped on Facebook" came up with the figures.

mikhail

ThisRegard wrote: »

So everything should be free after 5 years? Is this a generational thing in which people of a certain age expect, and feel entitled to, certain forms of media for free?

Copyright is entirely artifical. It has been extended and extended at the behest of media giants like Disney that took old public domain stories, repackaged them and jealously guard their profits at the expense of the public domain.

I can't recall the precise figure, but something like 99% of all income for media companies is generated by properties under five years old.

James Joyce's works are notoriously hard to quote even a few lines from because his family is quick to sue. Arthur Conan Doyle has been dead since 1930, and some of his later works are still in copyright in many jurisdictions. Who benefits from that? Why should we, as a society, grant those people this ridiculous monopoly over the output of men long dead?

GOOD NEWS EVERYBODY ! https://www.siliconrepublic.com/life/europe-agrees-cross-border-access-digital-content-2018

The European Commission has agreed a new portability ruling, stating that as of 2018, EU residents can access their digital content in all EU countries.

The European Commission has set new rules that remove geographic limitations on where EU residents can access their digital content such as digital books, video games, music and more.

There may be a grey area re grey imports, but EU rules have been clear about movement of services.

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

GOOD NEWS EVERYBODY ! https://www.siliconrepublic.com/life/europe-agrees-cross-border-access-digital-content-2018

There may be a grey area re grey imports, but EU rules have been clear about movement of services.

I will become even more Grey the more use the Cloud gets. Data stored across multiple servers in multiple areas and Countries. Copyright needs to be changed.

mikhail wrote: »

Copyright is entirely artifical. It has been extended and extended at the behest of media giants like Disney that took old public domain stories, repackaged them and jealously guard their profits at the expense of the public domain.

I can't recall the precise figure, but something like 99% of all income for media companies is generated by properties under five years old.

James Joyce's works are notoriously hard to quote even a few lines from because his family is quick to sue. Arthur Conan Doyle has been dead since 1930, and some of his later works are still in copyright in many jurisdictions. Who benefits from that? Why should we, as a society, grant those people this ridiculous monopoly over the output of men long dead?

Copyright was originally for 26/27 years. It was eventually extended beyond the authors death to provide for their offspring. Nowadays in the OECD (except the US) there are social welfare system so the offspring won't starve to death.

Not so long ago DVDs were given away with newspapers , to give an idea of how flash-in-the-pan most movies are. Nowadays I suspect that the physical cost of supplying a piece of plastic is too much.

Rule of thumb is that copyright gets extended when Mickey Mouse gets close to go public domain.

One of the most pernicious aspects of copyright is the rights holder can block the work. In the case of Joyce , yes you can pay millions to buy a letter written by him, but you can't quote from it or show a picture of it.

redcup342

Blaming KODI for Pirated Streams is completely retarded though.

It's like blaming Internet Explorer for kiddie porn.

somesoldiers

I have an app on my IPad where I can download anything I can stream for offline viewing. It slipped through the App Store a few years back before they realised it wasn't just an ad blocker.
It is the greatest app ever, I haven't updated by IOS in years in case it wipes it. Again if there was a service that offered this I would happily pay €20 a month at least

Across the pond.
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/08/kodi_crackdown/

Pay TV and other copyright industries are pinning their hopes that new prosecutions of “Kodi USB stick” sellers will thwart what they call an “epidemic” of streaming piracy.

...
“The law isn’t watertight,” FACT’s Matthew acknowledged. He says he sympathises with “people who don’t have the money to pay for a premium subscription,” but points out watching licensed live TV in a pub or a friend’s house is an ethical alternative.

The comments section is interesting - the short version is that with Spotify or Apple music you can get 99% of what you want in one place, but with TV/Film it's all over the place and worse what you see depends on who you are with, where you are, and what they've dropped recently. Even having multiple subscriptions is no guarantee you'll be able to see what you want , when you want. https://forums.theregister.co.uk/forum/1/2017/02/08/kodi_crackdown/