SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday January 16 2018, @11:44AM
True, you argued that artists should be paid for their work. And, in fact, most artists ARE "paid for their work" according to contracts signed by them, and by the recording studios. They may be paid very well, while they ride the popularity charts, or they may be paid very poorly. It's AFTER they fall off of the top forty (or whichever) charts that the industry begins to really screw them. In many cases, it is because of the artist's naivete. They didn't really understand the contract, so the contract promises NOTHING. In many other cases, the studios are flat out ripping the artists off. The artists is entitled to royalties, but gets none. (There are magic formulas used to minimize those royalties, IF the artist is actually paid anything at all.)
But the real issue is - you used that argument, when the recording industries use the very same argument. In reality, the argument is used to "justify" the industry's aggressive pursuit of "pirates" - be they some kid downloading a half dozen songs, or a professional quality recording studio stamping out a million copies each week. Or, streaming services. In point of fact, the argument is used as dishonestly as it can possibly be used by the industry. So, you need not be surprised if you are taken to task for using the argument at it's face value. Sorry - if you really meant it exactly as it reads, then I have an answer to that as well.
Historically, artists of any kind were only paid if, and when, they pleased their audiences. Or, if they had a patron who was pleased by their work. There was no "right" to be paid. Kids sing, play-act, write stories, and perform all the other arts there are, for fun. Young adults often continue this play, if they aren't employed 'round the clock just surviving. No one pays these people at all for their play. A lot of adults continue this play as a hobby, or pastime, into their old age. Few, if any, are ever compensated. All of that has been true from the dawn of time, right on up through today.
Exceptional entertainers often get paid for their work. That has been just as true, from the dawn of time. It was probably true even before mankind really became sapient - the great apes can be observed playing and entertaining each other.
But, always, the entertainer's pay has been at the discretion of the audience. That pay might range from, "I liked your singing, why don't you take my apple for lunch" to a patron who provides for all the entertainer's needs. The audience is NOT obligated to pay - never has been, until recently, when working men and women have significant amounts of time to waste.
Bottom line - if an artist is exceptional, people WANT to give him/her something. And, uhhhh, the recording studios don't exactly define "exeptional". Further, "exceptional" changes with time. There is simply no good reason for government and/or megacorps to act as some kind of intermediary, to determine that an artist should, or should not, be paid.
Let the customer decide what the music is worth.
Like almost everyone else who has enjoyed live entertainment, I have tipped bands and singers. A (very) few of those tips have been substantial enough to buy a decent meal for the entire band. (By "decent" I mean something classier than McDonald's or Taco Bell.) I was never obligated to hand over twenty or fifty bucks for listening to a few songs - I decided to do that all on my own. Other people do the same.
If a "starving artist" is actually starving, then he needs to decide that entertainment just isn't his thing. Find another line of work, or apply for welfare, or just die quietly in some city alley. No person on earth is obligated to support some guy who thinks that he is the next Paul McCartney - but can't carry a tune in a bucket.