Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by takyon on Tuesday September 27 2016, @08:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the streaming-pile-of-justice dept.

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.


Original Submission

Related Stories

MPAA Chief Focuses Attention on the Kodi Platform 44 comments

In an interview with Variety, the Motion Picture Association of America's CEO Chris Dodd spoke out about the growing popularity of Kodi open source media player:

While torrent sites have been a thorn in the side of the MPAA for more than a decade, there's a new kid on the block. Speaking at the Berlin Film Festival, MPAA chief Chris Dodd cited the growing use of the Kodi platform for piracy, describing the problem as the "$64,000 question."

[...] Legal battles over the misuse of the platform are ongoing, mainly in the UK and the Netherlands, where test cases have the ability to clarify the legal position, at least for sellers of so-called "fully loaded" devices. Interestingly, up until now, the MPAA has stayed almost completely quiet, despite a dramatic rise in the use of Kodi for illicit streaming. Yesterday, however, the silence was broken.

In an interview with Variety during the Berlin Film Festival, MPAA chief Chris Dodd described the Kodi-with-addons situation as "new-generation piracy". "The $64,000 question is what can be done about such illegal use of the Kodi platform," Dodd said.

While $64,000 is a tempting offer, responding to that particular question with a working solution will take much more than that. Indeed, one might argue that dealing with it in any meaningful way will be almost impossible.

First of all, Kodi is open source and has been since its inception in 2002. As a result, trying to target the software itself would be like stuffing toothpaste back in a tube. It's out there, it isn't coming back, and pissing off countless developers is extremely ill-advised. Secondly, the people behind Kodi have done absolutely nothing wrong. Their software is entirely legal and if their public statements are to be believed, they're as sick of piracy as the entertainment companies are. The third problem is how Kodi itself works. While to the uninitiated it looks like one platform, a fully-modded 'pirate' Kodi setup can contain many third-party addons, each capable of aggregating content from dozens or even hundreds of sites. Not even the mighty MPAA can shut them all down, and even if it could, more would reappear later. It's the ultimate game of whac-a-mole.

Previously: XBMC Is Getting a New Name: "Kodi"
Middlesbrough Trader Prosecuted for Selling Streaming Boxes Preloaded With Kodi
Five Arrests in 'Fully Loaded' Kodi Streaming Box Raids

[Ed Note: This is the same Chris Dodd who served 30 years as a US Senator from Connecticut. Probably best known for the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act.]


Original Submission

Two New Lawsuits Against Makers of "Pirate Streaming Devices" 27 comments

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.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @08:31PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @08:31PM (#407084)

    They voted Leave...

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:57AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:57AM (#407329)

      they also voted a woman so...

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @08:50PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 27 2016, @08:50PM (#407089)

    You can install Kodi on just about everything and search Google for the 3rd party addons. The **AA might as well sue the entire Internet because it'll never stop.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Snotnose on Tuesday September 27 2016, @11:09PM

      by Snotnose (1623) on Tuesday September 27 2016, @11:09PM (#407122)

      You and I can install Kodi on pretty much anything and google for add-ins. Mom? notsomuch.

      That said, I never heard of Kodi before.

      --
      When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by urza9814 on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:07AM

        by urza9814 (3954) on Thursday September 29 2016, @01:07AM (#407686) Journal

        That said, I never heard of Kodi before.

        It's recently been rebranded; You might have known it as XBMC.

    • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:03AM

      by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:03AM (#407184)

      Give them time and they will.

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Wednesday September 28 2016, @12:20PM

      by theluggage (1797) on Wednesday September 28 2016, @12:20PM (#407349)

      You can install Kodi on just about everything and search Google for the 3rd party addons.

      ...or you can use it to watch rips of your own DVDs (morally OK, arguably illegal, but unlikely to bother the **AA if you don't share them) or as a front-end to a PVR like MythTV or TVHeadEnd (time shifting was legal last time I looked). Also, there are such things as public domain, creative commons, copyleft or free-as-in-beer shows & movies (No, seriously, there's Star Wreck, and that Blender demo movie about a giant rabbit and, fan-made stuff that the original producers definitely may be cool with, and... er...)

      This guy is a jerk because he's publicly promoting Kodi as a way to watch pay TV streams for free and thus painting Kodi as a target for the **AA, for his own personal gain. He's getting the name Kodi entangled with serious/organised copyright infringement (as happened with Bittorrent).

      The BBC are also being irresponsible by using "Kodi" in their headlines.

  • (Score: 4, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday September 27 2016, @08:54PM

    by DeathMonkey (1380) on Tuesday September 27 2016, @08:54PM (#407090) Journal

    I plan on asking Trump's son to install these for me. He's really good at cyber.

    • (Score: 5, Funny) by Some call me Tim on Tuesday September 27 2016, @10:03PM

      by Some call me Tim (5819) on Tuesday September 27 2016, @10:03PM (#407112)

      And you can have Hillary wipe it clean. ;-)

      --
      Questioning science is how you do science!
    • (Score: 2) by Fnord666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:56AM

      by Fnord666 (652) on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:56AM (#407164) Homepage

      I plan on asking Trump's son to install these for me. He's really good at cyber.

      Maybe Jaden Smith, infamous futurist, can configure it for you as well.

  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday September 27 2016, @09:10PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Tuesday September 27 2016, @09:10PM (#407098) Homepage

    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

      by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Tuesday September 27 2016, @09:32PM (#407107) Homepage Journal

      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

        by edIII (791) on Tuesday September 27 2016, @11:09PM (#407123)

        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.

        because there's no reason that anyone in the US would be charged with a crime for selling one of these boxes.

        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

          by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:06AM (#407154) Homepage Journal

          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

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday September 28 2016, @02:40AM (#407162) Journal

        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

        by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:07AM (#407186)

        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

          by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:45AM (#407196) Homepage Journal

          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]:

          Copyright infringement is a tort. So is enabling or inciting another to infringe, at least when the enabler knows that her conduct will result in infringement. Decisions dating back several decades recognize that one who supplies the means to infringe, and knows of the use to which the means will be put (or turns a blind eye), can be held liable for contributory infringement. [emphasis added]

          Tort (n) [law.com]:

          from French for "wrong," a civil wrong or wrongful act, whether intentional or accidental, from which injury occurs to another. Torts include all negligence cases as well as intentional wrongs which result in harm. Therefore tort law is one of the major areas of law (along with contract, real property and criminal law) and results in more civil litigation than any other category. [emphasis added]

          --
          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

            by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @11:47PM (#407675)
            But that's not for lack of trying. The *AA's and their allies would very much like to see copyright infringement criminalised as it is in certain places in the world, because that would mean that they wouldn't have to pay their own lawyers to prosecute, nor expend resources investigating themselves, because the government would then have to use its own lawyers to prosecute, and they would have all the powers of the police at their disposal to investigate infringement. Odd that the government of the USA hasn't capitulated to the copyright lobby this far yet.
          • (Score: 2) by EvilSS on Sunday October 02 2016, @05:24PM

            by EvilSS (1456) Subscriber Badge on Sunday October 02 2016, @05:24PM (#409110)

            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

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @10:13PM (#407640)

        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

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Tuesday September 27 2016, @11:17PM (#407128)

      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

        by wonkey_monkey (279) on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:34AM (#407240) Homepage

        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

      by NotSanguine (285) <{NotSanguine} {at} {SoylentNews.Org}> on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:49AM (#407198) Homepage Journal

      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

      by gidds (589) on Wednesday September 28 2016, @12:32PM (#407352)

      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]
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by jmorris on Tuesday September 27 2016, @11:13PM

    by jmorris (4844) on Tuesday September 27 2016, @11:13PM (#407125)

    This moron wasn't even going for the "adding 'on the Internet' changes everything" gambit. This clown was selling pirate stuff in a physical location outside of Asia. Duh, of course this was going to end badly. Why is this newsworthy Android settop boxes are legal. Kodi is legal. Selling Kodi on a settop box is legal. Loading it up with 3rd party plugins to access warez with zero knowledge required to locate and install them isn't. We all know (or should) that selling warez is the fastest way to attract law enforcement, selling a turnkey "click here to watch bootleg movies" solution is close enough to directly selling bootleg DVDs as to not matter.

    Installing that stuff yourself isn't legal either but nobody is going to get charged for what they do at home. They might lose Internet access for copyright violations but they won't go to jail or be broken in the courts.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday September 27 2016, @11:16PM

      by JoeMerchant (3937) on Tuesday September 27 2016, @11:16PM (#407127)

      Yep, headline is misleading as usual. It's the plug-ins that make it a problem, not Kodi.

      --
      🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:00AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:00AM (#407166)

        The KODI dudes are not happy with this situation either.

        https://kodi.tv/the-piracy-box-sellers-and-youtube-promoters-are-killing-kodi/ [kodi.tv]

        KODI's brand is hurt by these guys.

        Then to top it off someone buys one of these things off craigslist or ebay. Then when it messes up (and KODI will do that). They ask for a log. If there is even 1 hint of one of these plugins in the log they say 'sorry we will not support you talk to whomever you bought it from'. At that point the KODI team looks bad because a customer is in the lurch. The customer can not complain back upstream because more than likely the dude who sold it is long gone.

        The problem KODI can never address though is that the whole project is kinda 'grey'. It started off as an unauthorized xbox program. It plays pretty much every rip/stream format out there. It is designed to play content. The problem is from pretty much day one that content was from a torrent/swarm/usenet/ftp sources. It also as a project attracts people who try to flip a free program into a money paying one. Plex and Boxee spring to mind. It also attracts people who like to get their metadata services up and running to sell (ie discogs). It also attracts 'all in one' integrators. The 'get your jailbroken firestick' guys and the one off all in one installers with all the plug ins ready to go.

        Plugins have enabled this whole thing. Its amazing! I have bought a good amount of media to rip. It is amazing how much extra money you have when you get rid of cable. I have a box that can manage my 2500+ movie collection and 1000+ cd collection. Nothing else commercial comes close to the cost and ease of use KODI is. The closest commercial item was a netgear neo tv 550. That got burned by licensing from the mpeg and sony patent guys.

        • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:55AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:55AM (#407179)

          Fuck their brand, I want to watch what I want to watch, and if Kodi gets compunctions about plugins that help me do that, I'll go with a fork.

          • (Score: 2) by Aiwendil on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:38AM

            by Aiwendil (531) on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:38AM (#407244) Journal

            Which actually is what they want you to do (that is - stop using their name if you want to use the program for negative-PR stuff [so, if you're going to sell it to Joe Schmucks it is preferred that you rebrand it]).

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:13AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @04:13AM (#407738)

              piratel.ly domain is available (pirate+telly)