nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

oneilla

The Commercial Court was told yesterday that as many as 1.3 million people in the State may be involved in illegally accessing the work of six film and TV studios through various streaming websites.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/over-1m-viewers-could-have-access-cut-over-illegal-streaming-1.2965805

Six US movie studios are taking Irish internet providers to court to force them to block illegal streaming websites. Fair enough but 1.3million is nearly a quarter of the population. Seems like a lot of people. Helluva attention grabbing headline.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120338500#Comment_120338500

Wouldnt be worried. Plenty of providers outside of Ireland and Europe that cant be touched. Thank god for that.

Gregor Samsa

My wife very smart, but not particularly hot on popular culture.

Tonight at dinner, she says to me "did you hear that this thing about the 'naughty sticks'?"

The what now?

"Yeah, they're these sticks that a fireman in Limerick is selling, and they call them 'naughty sticks' or something. And you plug them into your TV and you can get movies that are only in the cinema."

Eh, they're "dodgy boxes", not naughty sticks. And I think you're talking about a FireStick - a device made by Amazon, not a stick sold by a fireman.

We had a good laugh. 😆

Heighway61

I wonder were there many shutdowns following today's operation. I remember some guys in Derry getting long jail time last time round.

Suckit

I see Joe dot ie copied and pasted an article from the Guardian UK today and just assumed it applies to Ireland. That surely must be the perfect example of very very lazy Journalism. Not even sure it should be called Journalism.
It keeps coming up as a top story in Google news -> Technology.

With options like Tails OS easily available, and skins to run is as a media centre or easily run Kodi inside it, it will be a long time before they get near blocking anything (apart from the blockable apps and other options available in common operating systems).
Even if Microsoft and Google started to release patches and updates that stopped certain apps from working (like iOS), people will quickly find ways to stop or block the updates or just rollback.

They should not be wasting millions on fighting this, they need to embrace it and use it to their advantage.

Online piracy (which is not even the correct term, as it implies profiteering) hasn’t come to destroy consumer entertainment. It is more than likely its savior, an amalgamation of lending library, viral-advertising hub, and market expansion tool.

That is taken from an article a few years ago (2013). Some good points imo, worth a read.
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/520336/how-hollywood-can-capitalize-on-piracy/

Another similar themed article here not as good, but written in 2010
https://gigaom.com/2010/12/13/hollywood-streaming-dvd/

The majority of the "All Time Worldwide Box Office Grosses" in the top 20 are after 2010.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

It seems being able to watch any movie or show in your home, on a home cinema screen at the push of a button means that going to the cinema becomes a more enjoyable night out. Whereas it used to be a nice to be able to sit in and watch the latest movie to appear on VHS/DVD etc. It is still nice to do that, but I think that the option to watch anything at any given time, is helping raise the till receipts at the Cinema.

mikhail

ThisRegard wrote: »

You could say the same for physical ownership, sure that concept was made up at some point in history, so why don't we take anything we want?

Because of the usefulness of the concept economically. We have limits on it in terms of CPOs, taxes, zoning laws, preservation orders, building regulations, etc. where an extreme concept of ownership would be more hinderence than useful. I've not argued that copyright should be removed, just that the term has been extended to ludicrous lengths by lobbying from media companies.

VinLieger

batistuta9 wrote: »

Wasn't there a TD who wanted to ban open source?

LOL forgot about that, patrick o donovan of FG

He wanted to ban open source browsers to stop people being able to use the darknet :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

batistuta9

VinLieger wrote: »

Or like blaming the Pirate Bay for torrents.

Google is a torrent searcher if you know how to set your search correctly, lets block google!

Wasn't there a TD who wanted to ban open source?

ThisRegard

mikhail wrote: »

Copyright is entirely artifical.

You could say the same for physical ownership, sure that concept was made up at some point in history, so why don't we take anything we want?

VinLieger

redcup342 wrote: »

Blaming KODI for Pirated Streams is completely retarded though.

It's like blaming Internet Explorer for kiddie porn.

Or like blaming the Pirate Bay for torrents.

Google is a torrent searcher if you know how to set your search correctly, lets block google!

Capt'n Midnight

If there's more than 1m viewers then they could sign an EU petition

http://ec.europa.eu/citizens-initiative/public/basic-facts

What is a European citizens' initiative?

A European citizens' initiative is an invitation to the European Commission to propose legislation on matters where the EU has competence to legislate. A citizens' initiative has to be backed by at least one million EU citizens, coming from at least 7 out of the 28 member states.

Capt'n Midnight

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/

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

redcup342

Blaming KODI for Pirated Streams is completely retarded though.

It's like blaming Internet Explorer for kiddie porn.

Capt'n Midnight

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.

darkpagandeath

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.

Capt'n Midnight

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.

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?

darkpagandeath

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.

Wang Kerr

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

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.

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.

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.

darkpagandeath

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.

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.

[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?

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.

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.

darkpagandeath

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.

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

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