Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

jj880 · 16-06-2026 06:56PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124555733#Comment_124555733

Oi! Thats my line! 😄

I expect an article eventually with some vague excuses about how its not going to court or they'll try to make out everyone has signed without clearly stating it.

Yes lets see. Thread is going a bit haywire olrite.

Doge · 16-06-2026 07:26PM

https://x.com/UtdHeisenberg_/status/2066204177773023409?s=20

Just saw this video and can't but help wonder if its a dodgy box hes using or the real sky glass interface! 😁🤣

Anyone know?

jj880 · 16-06-2026 07:33PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124555853#Comment_124555853

Looks legit. 😅

Arseholes for posting that! Grandad should leave all his money to the local hospice!

VinLieger · 16-06-2026 07:43PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124555621#Comment_124555621

So any phone or computer that has a vpn(copyright defeating software) pre-installed which happens regularly these days is now illegal under your definition…..

But also you dont know the software is included, once again this is all based on some pretty massive assumptions on your part.

I know of services that you simply pay and they send you links to the software to then download it to a device you own, if we then define that as a copyright/protection defeating device literally any device that not only has a vpn installed but also has the ability to have one installed becomes illegal. I think theres a chance you may not have thought this one through?

Dr Robert · 16-06-2026 07:53PM

Has anyone lost one of these cases in a civil court?

Or has it ever been tested?

dubrov · 16-06-2026 08:02PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124555917#Comment_124555917

I doubt Sky have even tried.

If they lost one, it would be a disaster for them and could open the floodgates

DXR · 16-06-2026 08:24PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124555621#Comment_124555621

Come on, you're clearly just winging it now, many variations of IPTV software are readily available for sale/free on the Apple Store, Google play store, Microsoft etc, and perfectly legal to do so.

They're generic apps/software and you customise it with URLs with username and passwords to access content, which incidentally do not necessarily have to be any of sky's content.

But to suggest the devices or indeed the software is illegal is just plain making it up as we go along.

There's such a broad spectrum of devices and or software that's available to end users that it's patently obvious why sky haven't prosecuted a single end user, I would say it's nigh on impossible.

irishgeo · 16-06-2026 08:50PM

A VPN does not break copyright by design.

I am not making assumptions it's in the law posted above.

An custom IPTV app is copyright defeating software.

Perhaps if you went off a done a bit of research it's not hard.

jj880 · 16-06-2026 09:08PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124555733#Comment_124555733

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124556113#Comment_124556113

Was there a court ruling between these posts? 😅

Johnboy1951 · 16-06-2026 10:55PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124556113#Comment_124556113

An custom IPTV app is copyright defeating software.

Yes if that is what it is designed to do.

But for the majority of cases perfectly legal apps can be used to break copyright law, and until they are used for that purpose their use is perfectly legal.

Maybe if you specified that in the first place you would not have been pulled up on your generalities, which are not true.

Nowso · 17-06-2026 08:01AM

wexford people

deezell · 17-06-2026 08:37AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124556914#Comment_124556914

Press is on their side judging by the headline. If Sky rely on the lazy ill defined label 'Dodgy Box' as a persuasive argument, they'll be dismantled in seconds. There's no such thing. IPTV software, the devices it runs on, and the file formats it uses to read streams from the Internet are all perfectly legal. Tvs, game consoles, plug in sticks or your phone are all legitimate iptv devices. No illicit hardware modifications or software virus is required to interpret industry defined stream urls that supply the stream back to the box. The to and fro traffic of this stream is industry defined and regulated. Its the content source that is the issue, and only if you knowingly paid for and activated a stream which contained content copied from a direct sky source. Otherwise Sky are not the injured party, if any. Stream urls in their thousands are legitimate and many are free, so no receiving device is 'dodgy'. My old Samsung set even populates the main EPG automatically with a large selection of free tv channels, all received by a version of IPTV. Its a bit like buying fake Levis, are you complicit, or just a victim? Would you be required to stop wearing them if informed? Could Levis pull your trousers down? Thats what Sky is attempting to do, but they're the one with no clothes.

DXR · 17-06-2026 09:14AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124556914#Comment_124556914

Serious egg on face incoming for sky I think. How will they save face on this one ?

VinLieger · 17-06-2026 09:18AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124556113#Comment_124556113

Now who's moving the goalposts? First you said people needed to prove a negative to show they weren't breaking the law which is not how the law or courts work, you know that whole innocent until proven guilty thing? Then you moved to owning the device is the crime, which is technically true but the law doesn't define what that device is. Then you really shifted things to talking out your ass by trying to assume the laws intent and define that device by saying if it included copyright defeating software, which again is nowhere in the law. Then when pointed out a VPN fits that definition you talk out your ass further well "it wasn't designed to do that".

The straw clutching goal post shifting is just at ridiculous levels now.

While the original intent of VPNs when they were created was not to break copyright, VPNs these days absolutely are designed to break copyright that's why pretty much every major VPN company advertises its effectiveness at defeating the geoblocks of various streaming services and what are geoblocks in place for? To enforce copyright……

But lets test your argument of intent a bit further, the android boxes this software gets installed on also weren't specifically designed to break copyright until they had the software installed on them therefore they don't fit your new definition of "specifically designed".

Also you are absolutely making assumptions because that law defines nothing and has as far as i know never been tested to this extent so as to define things in the ways you are claiming.

But in reality both you and I know this is all nonsense, this is you simply refusing to back down and admit you are wrong. Kinda like that time your partner in this thread @dxhound2005 refused to admit they were wrong after they claimed multiple times that a major reason the UK left the EU was because the EU was stopping them putting crowns on pint glasses.

dxhound2005 · 17-06-2026 09:19AM

No surprise that the solicitor is advising people to seek legal advice before signing. It should create good business for the local solicitors, probably including herself. And it will cost them plenty.

Wanderer78 · 17-06-2026 09:40AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124555853#Comment_124555853

xciptv

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nathnetwork.xciptv&hl=en_IE&pli=1

jj880 · 17-06-2026 09:41AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124557027#Comment_124557027

Kinda like that time your partner in this thread @dxhound2005 refused to admit they were wrong after they claimed multiple times that a major reason the UK left the EU was because the EU was stopping them putting crowns on pint glasses.

Please link to this if possible. Ive searched but cant find. Could do with a good laugh 😂

DXR · 17-06-2026 09:56AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124557071#Comment_124557071

Here's just a few of these "illegal softwares" freely available to install straight off Google play store.

Tivimate

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ar.tvplayer.companion

Adoo

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.simpletv.simpleiptvplayerpro

Smarters

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.smarters.smarterspro

Nanomid

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.nanomid.player

There's heaps more. But it's clear some posters on this thread are way in over their heads.

VinLieger · 17-06-2026 10:28AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124557074#Comment_124557074

Happy to oblige, specifically you should note the year they regurgitated this nonsense

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120608934#Comment_120608934

Wanderer78 · 17-06-2026 10:35AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124557104#Comment_124557104

tivimate all the way, porn looks great on it, but shur i guess the ould soccerball does to!

54and56 · 17-06-2026 06:41PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124556959#Comment_124556959

I generally agree with your post but there are custom boxes you can purchase from illegal IPTV providers who have loaded them with pre-configured IPTV apps (and custom Jellyfin apps for movie / TV Series streaming) containing server login details to their illegal re-broadcasting service then locked access to the box so it essentially has only one function and that is to connect to the illegal streaming service which the provider can then remotely log into and update, change setting etc as needs be as the "user" is in the category of user who cannot follow set up instructions and tends to clog the providers help function (Facebook page / Telegram Channel etc) with "service not working" requests which are alomst always due to the user messing around with the app / box settings.

In that specific type of case the receiving device is indeed "dodgy" as it's sole purpose is to illegally stream copyrighted content.

mrm · 17-06-2026 08:53PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124556914#Comment_124556914

Some users have received 'three or four such letters". Well, which is it? Or should that read 'some users have received one or two or three or four letters'? And dont forget some users received none letters!

This reads bad with the last paragraph - "Where individuals fail to comply, sky will not hesitate to take further action, including seeking court injunctions.."

'Further action' - is there anything to be said for another letter? Four letters demonstrates they appear to be hesitant to seek court injunctions as a further action.

jj880 · 17-06-2026 10:25PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124558684#Comment_124558684

The 5th letter will be ALL CAPS! No more Mr Nice Sky!

irishgeo · 17-06-2026 10:39PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124557027#Comment_124557027

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2000/act/28/section/370/enacted/en/html

Protection defeating device.

Its pretty sad that because you can't accept their points that you have to search old posts and try and riducle people.

Yes there are perfectly fine IPTV apps but once you modify it to receive copyright material it is now a protection defeating device.

In the Dunbar case he was supplying a custom IPTV app pecifically designed to receive copyrighted material.

DXR · 17-06-2026 11:09PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124559156#Comment_124559156

In the Dunbar case he was supplying a custom IPTV app pecifically designed to receive copyrighted material.

Just because it has the potential to receive copyrighted material, it is also capable of receiving 10s of thousands of perfectly legal FTA Channels too, so because it's capable does not automatically mean that's what the device was used for.

That lawyer quoted in that article posted earlier seems to think this lack of proof thing has more importance than some in here do, did you read the article?

"End-user liability is not automatic simply because a person's details were disclosed by Revolut," she said. "Sky still has to prove infringement, that the person knew or ought to have known it was an illegal or unauthorised service. There's also the possibility that the person identified may not actually be the end user."
Ms McDonald believes that Sky would also have to have proof that the person physically used their subscription to access content illegally. While this would be easier in a commercial setting, say a pub where an inspector could walk in and see Sky's content being illegally accessed, it would prove more difficult with individual dodgy-box users in the privacy of their own living room.
"They must prove accessing or using the Sky content," Ms McDonald stresses. "Again, someone could have bought a dodgy-box but never used it. In the main, the technical proof required here is substantial in nature."

VinLieger · 17-06-2026 11:46PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124559156#Comment_124559156

Jesus this again, it does not define what that is anywhere. Also the fact you have chopped and changed your own definition of what it means 2-3 times just proves that point.

And any legal professional worth their salt could easily argue the boxes Dunbar supplied his customers aren't actually defeating protection they are simply being supplied content and it's only dunbars systems or whoever else supplies the services which are defeating copyright protection.

The fact there is not a single criminal case against a subscriber to these services kinda proves you are talking through your arse because if you were correct people would be getting prosecuted up and down the country.

irishgeo · 18-06-2026 07:53AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124559356#Comment_124559356

Why would you pay repeatly for something you didn't use.

IPTV systems log IP that's how they know your sharing your sub. Maybe logs exist?

The first cases are currently before the courts.

I have changed my stance at all.

The DPP often decides not to charge cases where laws have been broken You might not be charged but that doesn't make the crime legal.

I'll explain it again.

Criminal: beyond a reasonable doubt.

Civil: balance of probabilities.

Sky need to prove they watched sky channels for compensation but all they need to do is prove they watched any copyright material at all and the judge could convict someone.

deezell · 18-06-2026 08:31AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124558272#Comment_124558272

Which sounds like the device owners only have access to the epg. They can't be accused of the configuration that makes the device use potentially illegal IF they watched sky content. All the blame lies with the seller. I suppose the same is true with cheap Chinese network devices which have been proven to contain malicious potential backdoors all the way back to Bejing. The consumer is the victim, not the perp.

Y'know, people in general only scan headlines, then misremember the message. It's how far right /left factions thrive, sowing seeds of lies and misunderstanding. Sky run a very real risk that people might generally associate Sky with ending up in court, and might avoid entirely any products with a Sky logo. I doubt any of this is making people flock to sign up for Sky Mobile, broadband or TV. The noise has no positive effect for Sky whatsoever, they come across as bullies, regardless of their legal niceties and entitlement. They've also backed themselves into a corner, and it's difficult to see how they can extricate themselves with a positive result in their favour. Sternly worded Letters, followed by Letters in all capitals. Brilliant. Maybe a letter from John Cleese threatening 'a damn good thrashing'. They should take a leaf from the TV license crowd. Persuasion, not intimidation.

VinLieger · 18-06-2026 08:44AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124559560#Comment_124559560

Lol you haven't changed your position at all? Up until now you've been banging on about it being illegal to own the device now your saying that the judge will convict on whether they watched the content, but if they watched the content then surely they own the device so why arent they being done for that ehh?

You cannot keep it together at all and this has gone beyond pointless so ill be ignoring your unhinged utterings from now on.

Benedict XVI · 18-06-2026 08:49AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/124559611#Comment_124559611

. I suppose the same is true with cheap Chinese network devices which have been proven to contain malicious potential backdoors all the way back to Bejing. The consumer is the victim, not the perp.

Bad analogy.

People buy Internet devices for their everyday home network setup or whatever, and they are the victim if that device is a back door to Bejing.

But they buy a dodgy box to get content they cannot get through normal means, or as a way to get content that is available much cheaper.

They are the unsuspecting victim in one case, in the other case they are actively looking for something to get around something.

Clampdown on TV 'Dodgy Boxes'

Comments