Netflix, Amazon and Hollywood Sue Kodi-Powered Dragon Box Over Piracy
Several major Hollywood studios, Amazon, and Netflix have filed a lawsuit against Dragon Media Inc, branding it a supplier of pirate streaming devices. The companies accuse Dragon of using the Kodi media player in combination with pirate addons to facilitate mass copyright infringement via its Dragon Box device. [...] In recent months these boxes have become the prime target for copyright enforcers, including the Alliance for Creativity and Entertainment (ACE), an anti-piracy partnership between Hollywood studios, Netflix, Amazon, and more than two dozen other companies.
After suing Tickbox last year a group of key ACE members have now filed a similar lawsuit against Dragon Media Inc, which sells the popular Dragon Box. The complaint, filed at a California federal court, also lists the company's owner Paul Christoforo and reseller Jeff Williams among the defendants.
According to ACE, these type of devices are nothing more than pirate tools, allowing buyers to stream copyright infringing content. That also applies to Dragon Box, they inform the court. "Defendants market and sell 'Dragon Box,' a computer hardware device that Defendants urge their customers to use as a tool for the mass infringement of the copyrighted motion pictures and television shows," the complaint, picked up by HWR, reads.
Also at Ars Technica.
Rights Holders Launch Landmark Case Against 'Pirate' Android Box Sellers
Rightsholders will tread new ground today when they attempt a private prosecution of 'pirate' Android box sellers in Singapore. In what many believe is a legal gray area, SingTel, Starhub, Fox Networks Group and Premier League will seek a win in order to suppress further sales in the region. [...] Today will see these rights holders attempt to launch a pioneering private prosecution against set-top box distributor Synnex Trading and its client and wholesale goods retailer, An-Nahl. It's reported that the rights holders have also named Synnex Trading director Jia Xiaofen and An-Nahl director Abdul Nagib as defendants in their private criminal case.
[...] The importance of the case cannot be understated. While StarHub and other broadcasters have successfully prosecuted cases where people unlawfully decrypted broadcast signals, the provision of unlicensed streams isn't specifically tackled by Singapore's legislation. It's now a major source of piracy in the region, as it is elsewhere around the globe.
Related: Middlesbrough Trader Prosecuted for Selling Streaming Boxes Preloaded With Kodi
Five Arrests in 'Fully Loaded' Kodi Streaming Box Raids
MPAA Chief Focuses Attention on the Kodi Platform
Kodi Panic in the UK and Popularity in North America
Kodi Add-on Library "TVAddons" Disappears After Lawsuit
Hollywood Strikes Back Against Illegal Streaming Kodi Add-Ons
Kodi Returns to its Roots With an Xbox One Release
(Score: 2, Disagree) by tibman on Monday January 15 2018, @05:38PM (1 child)
You're saying every product you can buy in a store is usually used to make people's lives more difficult. Don't be crazy.
You say that copyright for books was fine back on the original printing press. So you are somewhat okay with a creator exercising control of their creations. But then you say copyrighting a program is "harming society as a whole both materially and spiritually" because it is used rather than read and enjoyed. The consumption of the thing isn't the point of copyright. It's the copying! To make this more fun, if you are okay with copyright protecting books then what about ebooks? The exact same amount of work went into writing the paperbook and ebook. Only the distribution model is different.
OT:
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday January 15 2018, @08:35PM
No, I don't think that he said that at all. What I saw, when I read his post, was that people who own "intellectual property" want unwarranted control over their products, and hence, the customer, after they have bought the product.
Consider the Windows operating system(s). You have several different "levels" of the Windows operating system. Home, student, professional, server, and more. So, the home user, and the student are probably looking for the cheapest version of Windows they can get. The professional wants something better, and server is server - you pay a premium for those options enabled in server versions.
But, let's do a full stop right there. "Options enabled in server" means exactly what it says. One of my pet peeves, early in the days of Windows, was that ONLY ONE PERSON CAN LOG INTO WINDOWS PROFESSIONAL AT A TIME. When the wife was sitting in front of the computer, and I logged in remotely to do something, THE SYSTEM LOCKED HER SCREEN! Of course, she whined, moaned, and logged right back in, which then locked my account. Uhhh, why is that? Well, it's not a lack of ability - it is Windows policy. If you want multiple active logins, you must purchase one version or another of Windows Server.
Linux? There really isn't any "server version". Take any version of Linux, and however many people have accounts on the machine can all log in at the same time. Doesn't matter if they have a dumb terminal, or they're logging in from the internet, they can all log in at the same time. (Of course, if you have limited resources - memory, CPU, disk access, things are going to slow down, but the system won't limit the number of active logged in accounts.)
And, look at the pricing for those server installations. The cheapest are several times the cost of Windows Pro.
THAT is the kind of thing that GP was addressing. The "owners" of "Intellectual Property" want to control you, and how you use their products. The only "legal" way to gain access to all the abilities within their systems, is to submit to extortion. Pay, and pay, and keep on paying.
That crap is reprehensible - or worse.