How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards
Mods please check the Moderators Group for an important update on Mod tools. If you do not have access to the group, please PM Niamh. Thanks!

Copyright & Streaming:- Discussion on BBC R5

  • #1
    Registered Users Posts: 13,868 ✭✭✭✭ Johnboy1951
    From 1:37:25

    I was very surprised to hear them refer to 'kodi boxes' without any real objection from any of the participants.
    It is a pity they did not have a representative or at least a statement from Kodi on the subject.
    There is no such thing as a "Kodi box" according to Kodi.

    I wondered as I listened if the (expected soon) upcoming decision by the ECJ on the legality of streaming content regardless its copyright status, has tempered the usual outpourings from the copyright holders side.
    Essentially the message was that a person streaming content is 'highly unlikely' to be accused of anything related to copyright infringement. I expect after the decision of the ECJ is in that will change to a clear statement, one way or the other.

    An October 2016 article on the subject

    Bringing this home more ...... should the ECJ decide that streaming cannot infringe copyright, would this cause any change on Boards, where presently threads are locked and bans are issued to those discussing certain aspects of this?
    Indeed, maybe the question should be ...... should the decision make any difference to the Boards attitude to such things?


  • While awaiting news of the ECJ decision I came across this today

    While the bodyof the text does explain that Kodi is just a media player/organiser, the heading implies something different, just by asking the question
    Is Kodi legal? Here's what you need to know about streaming TV shows and films with Kodi

    I expect there is a large amount of lobbying going on presently, so the legality of streaming media will be determined in the manner the paid lobbyists wish.
    I hope the decision is in favour of it being legal, so that ordinary users do not have to worry about the legality of everything they view while on line.
    Let the copyright holders go after those who make such content illegally available.

  • It appears that Derbyshire County Council (UK) trading standards officers take the view that streaming content regardless copyright status, is not illegal.
    This would appear to follow the same reasoning implied in the preliminary decision of the EUCJ.
    “Accessing premium paid-for content without a subscription is considered by the industry as unlawful access, although streaming something online, rather than downloading a file, is likely to be exempt from copyright laws,” the spokesperson added.

    Hopefully clarity will be brought to the situation soon.

  • kleefarr wrote: »

    Unfortunately, to date, what we are relying on is interpretation of a preliminary judgement that did not relate directly to accessing streaming services which do not have licences for the material being streamed.

    Until clarity is brought to the situation it is not possible to be certain those interpretations are correct.

    The EUCJ document is here
    1 This request for a preliminary ruling concerns the interpretation of Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society (OJ 2001 L 167, p. 10).

    2 The request has been made in proceedings between Public Relations Consultants Association Ltd (‘the PRCA’) and Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others (‘the NLA’) concerning the obligation to obtain authorisation from the copyright holders for the viewing of websites where this involves copies of those sites being made on the user’s computer screen and in the internet cache of that computer’s hard disk.

    It is not yet clear, I believe, that 'viewing of websites' will in fact equate to streaming content from a dodgy service.
    There is also the matter of the licence - there was a licence in place and the dispute was whether that licence covered those viewing the site. (That was my interpretation of what I read).
    10 Meltwater agreed to enter into a web database licence. The PRCA, however, maintained that the online receipt of the monitoring reports by Meltwater’s customers not require a licence.

  • This is just for information as it is related to accessing illegal content on some sites.
    Court orders ISPs to block illegal streaming websites
    The Irish Commercial Court has ordered nine ISPs to block three websites offering illegal downloading or streaming of copyrighted movies and TV shows. The action was brought by Motion Pictures Association, representing six film and TV studios. The Court held that it was clear there had been infringement of copyright, that it would not result in the lawful use of the internet being interfered with and the order was proportionate to the damage being caused. None of the ISPs opposed the application for the injunction.

  • Advertisement

  • It appears that some clarification is now brought to the situation. A decision dated 27th April 2017 refers:-
    2. Article 5(1) and (5) of Directive 2001/29 must be interpreted as meaning that acts of temporary reproduction, on a multimedia player, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, of a copyright-protected work obtained by streaming from a website belonging to a third party offering that work without the consent of the copyright holder does not satisfy the conditions set out in those provisions.
    The provisions referred to above ...
    Under Article 5(1) of Directive 2001/29, an act of reproduction may be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2 thereof only if it satisfies five conditions, that is, where

    – the act is temporary;

    – it is transient or incidental;

    – it is an integral and essential part of a technological process;

    – the sole purpose of that process is to enable a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary or a lawful use of a work or protected subject matter; and

    – that act does not have any independent economic significance.

    So there is no exemption and thus the use of the media box which is the subject of this decision, to stream copyrighted material, without the consent of the copyright holder, is illegal.

    Unfortunately, like all such decisions, it addresses only what is before the court.

    1. Was it illegal to sell to the public media boxes that are configured so that they could be used to access copyrighted material without permission of the copyright holder?

    2. Is it illegal for a user to use such a media box to stream that content?

    What is not addressed is the very common situation of a user installing and configuring a more basic media box him/herself .... is the streaming of the content then illegal?
    I would think almost definitely YES.

    So from first reading, it appears to me that streaming of copyright protected content without permission of the rights holder, is illegal.

    Would anyone disagree?

  • Would anyone disagree?


  • kleefarr wrote: »