SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Brian Thompson, a Middlesbrough trader, has been prosecuted for selling set-top boxes running Android that come pre-installed with the Kodi/XBMC open source media centre software.
A Middlesbrough trader is set to make legal history as the first person to be prosecuted for selling Android boxes. Following an 18-month investigation, Brian Thompson has been told Middlesbrough Council is taking him to court in what could prove a landmark case.
The council claims the boxes are illegal, but Brian said: "I am pleading not guilty and I'm going to fight this."
The kit - also known as a 'Kodi box' - allows viewers to watch copyright material like Premier League football and Hollywood movies for free. As such there are major question marks over both their legality, and exactly just what people can safely watch.
What seems to be at issue here is that some traders, perhaps Thompson, were selling these set-top boxes preloaded with third-party Kodi add-ons that permit access to media in violation of copyright law. More coverage at the BBC.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 27 2016, @09:10PM
Was this story sponsored by the Middlesbrough tourist board, or something?
Or does the guy trade Middlesbroughs...
In all seriousness, specifying that this story took place in the UK might be more informative here.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 27 2016, @09:32PM
Was this story sponsored by the Middlesbrough tourist board, or something?
Or does the guy trade Middlesbroughs...
In all seriousness, specifying that this story took place in the UK might be more informative here.
It's obvious that it's about the UK.
Because they called him a "trader" and because there's no reason that anyone in the US would be charged with a crime for selling one of these boxes. I suppose they might get sued (because that's the American Way™ [youtube.com]).
The issue is that they allow access to television to those who don't pay their license [wikipedia.org], and in the UK, that's a crime.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by edIII on Tuesday September 27 2016, @11:09PM
Yeah, I have to disagree. I thought this was in the USA initially. The first clue really is council, not trader, and the greatest clue is the link to the BBC for more coverage. Until that link, I thought this could be some day trader in a sleepy town in the Eastern USA.
Yeah, you don't live in the US do you? ;) Anything can be a crime, and everybody is guilty of something. With intellectual property being what it is here, that guy could have been picked up by the FBI. All it takes is a phone call from a major corp and the FBI turns into paid enforcers.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:06AM
Yeah, you don't live in the US do you? ;) Anything can be a crime, and everybody is guilty of something. With intellectual property being what it is here, that guy could have been picked up by the FBI. All it takes is a phone call from a major corp and the FBI turns into paid enforcers.
I've lived in the US my whole life. As for "Anything can be a crime," that's nothing new or unique to the US. Another Soylentil's sig (his username is eluding me at the moment) is instructive:
If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged
--Often attributed to Cardinal Richelieu or to Voltaire
And while we like to think that what you're saying is true, unless this guy was selling pirate cable/satellite boxes (which is a crime -- fraud and conspiracy in theft of services, I believe), there's no reason for law enforcement to get involved. The most likely scenario in the US would be something like the Napster case. As I said, there would be massive lawsuits filed, because that's the American way (the Sherry Bobbins bit wasn't really related, I just like it.
The difference between US and British law is the television licence [wikipedia.org] regime.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:40AM
The issue is that they allow access to television to those who don't pay their license, and in the UK, that's a crime.
Its not at all clear that the Middlesbrough Council would have jurisdiction in this case. I would have thought a license would not be in the jurisdiction of a local council.
Further, the box itself is not illegal. It might be that he pre-installed something that allowed it to view live programming in real time, rather than streaming it over the net on a delayed basis, which I've been led to believe is not illegal. [tvlicensing.co.uk]
The story says copyrighted material, but I believe the issue in the UK is LIVE media.
The kit - also known as a 'Kodi box' - allows viewers to watch copyright material like Premier League football and Hollywood movies for free.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by EvilSS on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:07AM
Not super obvious. At first I thought he was a stock broker from some company called Middlesbrough or something. Could not figure how that would be relevant. As for not getting charged with a crime in the US, you are unfortunately very wrong. Facilitating copyright infringement is a crime in the US, and this would fall under that gigantic umbrella.
(Score: 3, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:45AM
Facilitating copyright infringement is a crime in the US, and this would fall under that gigantic umbrella.
Yup. That's why all those guys from Napster and Grokster are serving long prison terms, right? Oh, wait. Not so much.
From this article [columbia.edu]:
Tort (n) [law.com]:
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:47PM
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Sunday October 02 2016, @05:24PM
You should ask Kim Dotcom or Richard O'Dwyer about that. I'm willing to bet they and their lawyers would disagree that it's not a criminal issue. Or look up 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 18 U.S.C. §§ 2, 2319 since those are the criminal statute used in the Mega Upload case.
18 U.S.C. § 371—Conspiracy to Defraud the United States
18 U.S. Code § 2319 - Criminal infringement of a copyright
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:13PM
The issue is that they allow access to pay television to those who don't pay their subscription or pay-per-view fee, and in the UK, that's a crime.
http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/legal-watch-premier-league-games-11615142 [gazettelive.co.uk]
Churlishly failing to pay one's TV licence would be a separate offence.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday September 27 2016, @11:17PM
For those of us who live in the English-speaking world, but not in the US the assumption is that the Middlesbrough quoted in the story is going to be the one in the North-East of England.
I would need to use Google* to inform myself of any other Middlesbroughs that might exist.
*Other search engines available.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:34AM
For those of us who live in the English-speaking world, but not in the US the assumption is that the Middlesbrough quoted in the story is going to be the one in the North-East of England.
That's only if you've heard of it in the first place.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:49AM
Was this story sponsored by the Middlesbrough tourist board, or something?
Or does the guy trade Middlesbroughs...
In all seriousness, specifying that this story took place in the UK might be more informative here.
Okay, I guess where this was wasn't obvious to anyone but me. Sorry about that.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by gidds on Wednesday September 28 2016, @12:32PM
Specifying the locality of all stories might be better — or at least, explaining aspects that non-locals might be confused by.
Not all of us are from the US; not all of us are intimately familiar with US culture, locations, politics, &c. I for one am fed up with misunderstanding, being baffled by, or having to research stories that assumed I was.
So I'm afraid I find it hard to sympathise now that the boot is (for once) on another foot :-)
[sig redacted]