Android boxes in trouble in Canada
- Thread starter bigdummy
- Start date
Might help if you provide a non link to a website or retailer that was providing this info. As for android TV, there are a lot of android devices as even the Nvidia Shield TV has Kodi and it probably does show the app on one or more of their ads. There is nothing illegal about Kodi itself or Stalker middleware either. Its what gets loaded via the software that becomes a legal issue and only if it relates to illegal programming services not the software that provides a bridge to it.
its the online stores selling kodi installed on boxes full of third party addons that have been charged and targeted and shut down
The point is that there are no TVs sold with Kodi pre-installed, as far as I know, and that the Samsungs have never been reported to be able to load Kodi. We are now off topic, so get back to it.
--
Re-opening the thread. Keep discussion to the Android boxes with preloaded Kodi and apps.
--
Re-opening the thread. Keep discussion to the Android boxes with preloaded Kodi and apps.
Last edited:
they have been served to cease and decist selling boxes , as I know someone who was and will be challenged in the court systems
here is what its called
Interlocutory is a legal term which can refer to an order, sentence, decree, or judgment, given in an intermediate stage between the commencement and termination of a cause of action, used to provide a temporary or provisional decision on an issue.
Interlocutory is a legal term which can refer to an order, sentence, decree, or judgment, given in an intermediate stage between the commencement and termination of a cause of action, used to provide a temporary or provisional decision on an issue.
its plain and simple guys. its just like FTA box. when you buy its legal. when you download bin file to get illegal stuff you are in trouble. sam with android boxes. they are legal. kodi software it self is legal. when you download kodi its blank just like FTA box nothing inside. when you add add-ons with kodi or get device pre installed add-ons that what makes it illegal. hope this clears everybody. kof
Unlike 'bins' with FTA boxes, add-ons and apps do not decrypt a "private" satellite stream. They enable a user to view a rebroadcast of a stream or a copy of a program. The question in Canada is that do these boxes violate the owner of the copy-write (or the licensee) of their ability to charge a viewer for viewing it?
Dont know why they would have to serve a cease and desist order The court ordered them to stop
What police force? etc
curious on how they are proceeding
Last edited:
My 2 cents .... Kodi is gonna get banned on the net all together...and its there fault, i ve been a member of of there forum for long time..i even got the T-Shirt LOL View attachment 1760 and they are pissed that everyone wants to use Thier so called open source program for Illegal usage. which in all intents it was first created, now thier whinning big time....find the list of all the third party repositories that are blacklisted by them, its on thier site..W0W.
They screwed up and yes i said THEY screwed up by putting the APP on GOOGLE our so called Friend...Thats when the APP went kaka, sure give it to GOGGLE so they can alter and deter us from having freedom to exchange data and they are doing it. Did XBMC really think they were in control of it???? when Google wants the biggest piece of the TV/MOVIES Market...I think NOT...so now they are not in control...PERIOD.....OPENSOURCE means that anyone can use it or change it...it was a good program for a good long time till GOOGLE got a hold of it....
So i trully believe its the reasons we have problems with the IPTV service, Its all turned to Crapola...Just my 2cents worth....
I appologize if i hurt anyone feelings, Just had to Voice myself.. SECURITY SECURITY
They screwed up and yes i said THEY screwed up by putting the APP on GOOGLE our so called Friend...Thats when the APP went kaka, sure give it to GOGGLE so they can alter and deter us from having freedom to exchange data and they are doing it. Did XBMC really think they were in control of it???? when Google wants the biggest piece of the TV/MOVIES Market...I think NOT...so now they are not in control...PERIOD.....OPENSOURCE means that anyone can use it or change it...it was a good program for a good long time till GOOGLE got a hold of it....
So i trully believe its the reasons we have problems with the IPTV service, Its all turned to Crapola...Just my 2cents worth....
I appologize if i hurt anyone feelings, Just had to Voice myself.. SECURITY SECURITY
Last edited:
The bigger question comes when Canadians buy these boxes from outside of Canada and connect to servers outside of Canada. How do they legislate the laws to prevent it and what judge is going to sign search permits on private homes for the police to investigate assuming the police are going to waste their time getting one in the first place ? Back to the same old drawing board with another set of problems they won't be able to solve but it will put an end to some of the local trade in Canada although I'm not sure they'll be missed.
My 2 cents .... Kodi is gonna get banned on the net all together...and its there fault, i ve been a member of of there forum for long time..i even got the T-Shirt LOL View attachment 1760 and they are pissed that everyone wants to use Thier so called open source program for Illegal usage. which in all intents it was first created, now thier whinning big time....find the list of all the third party repositories that are blacklisted by them, its on thier site..W0W.
They screwed up and yes i said THEY screwed up by putting the APP on GOOGLE our so called Friend...Thats when the APP went kaka, sure give it to GOGGLE so they can alter and deter us from having freedom to exchange data and they are doing it. Did XBMC really think they were in control of it???? when Google wants the biggest piece of the TV/MOVIES Market...I think NOT...so now they are not in control...PERIOD.....OPENSOURCE means that anyone can use it or change it...it was a good program for a good long time till GOOGLE got a hold of it....
So i trully believe its the reasons we have problems with the IPTV service, Its all turned to Crapola...Just my 2cents worth....
I appologize if i hurt anyone feelings, Just had to Voice myself.. SECURITY SECURITY
That has already been tried with Netflix and Canada would have an easier time banning the internet as Linux is a free based operating system and Kodi has absolutely nothing that would allow any democratic country to ban or bring in legislation to make Kodi illegal but then it wouldn't be the first time the Federal Government lost a Supreme Court challenge. Good luck with that.
P.S. Don't need Google or anyone else to get Kodi which provides their software for downloading from their own website in whatever form for whatever OS including android windows and almost every android box out there. Nvidia Shield definitely has it pre-installed.
Last edited:
The only reason the Government got involved is because Bell and Rogers the two biggest Cable companies in Canada are whining and bitching. Not to mention all three of the above had large websites / store fronts actively selling another IPTV service hense why its such a big deal. This has absoloutely 0 effect on your average Joe box-seller
Last edited:
Many European satellite company has redirected its business towards IPTV removing any restrictions and can be viewed from anywhere in the world. The only condition which is set accounts to be registered by citizens holding personal documents, such as its nationals or permanent residents. The difference with Canadian prices is huge, but their quality 1080 - everyone prefers to pay them 10-20$ to watch HBO, SKY SPORT ...., and to save 100$ that pays to BELL - receive the same service. All they found holes in the laws and indirectly spread their own IPTV STB and applications for smart TV without any restrictions. The process is irreversible they use the original source for the channels they offer and have audio and subtitles in multiple languages makes them universal TV providers because their quality is guaranteed.
So the court tells them to stop installing KODI with pre installed apps that get the media off the internet. That only slows the process down. The apps can be gotten from a million places in hundreds of countries. So I am Canadian and I want these sources, how does Canada stop me from using my Rogers or Bell internet from going into the US, Mexico or Britain and getting these apps. Does it stop the selling and importing these boxes because they can be used to view movies with out paying. A driver of a car can get killed by driving a car improperly, do they stop the selling of a car. Puts a lot of Canadians out of work!
its the live tv thats the issue, streaming live tv content from these 2 companies sources into peoples home for a charge of which they get none,
who owns the airwave channels etc , they say its them not the re sellers and rd party addons have live tv as we all know, they aren't going to after mom and pop at their home, they will go after the sources
who provide these services on a box pre loaded for a price and fee
who owns the airwave channels etc , they say its them not the re sellers and rd party addons have live tv as we all know, they aren't going to after mom and pop at their home, they will go after the sources
who provide these services on a box pre loaded for a price and fee
iptv law in canada
How Canadian law views online streaming video: Geist
Viewers accessing unauthorized streaming websites are unlikely to be infringing copyright because merely watching a non-downloaded stream does not run afoul of the law.
The misuse of Canada’s new copyright notice-and-notice system has attracted considerable media and political attention over the past week. With revelations that some rights holders are requiring Internet providers to send notifications that misstate the law in an effort to extract payments based on unproven infringement allegations, the government has acknowledged that the notices are misleading and promised to contact providers and rights holders to stop the practice.
While the launch of the copyright system has proven to be an embarrassment for Industry Minister James Moore, many Canadians are still left wondering whether the law applies to Internet video streaming, which has emerged as the most popular way to access online video.
In recent years, the use of BitTorrent and similar technologies to engage in unauthorized copying has not disappeared, but network usage indicates its importance is rapidly diminishing. Waterloo-based Sandvine recently reported that BitTorrent now comprises only 5 per cent of Internet traffic during peak periods in North America (file sharing as a whole takes up 7 per cent). That represents a massive decline since 2008, when file sharing constituted nearly one-third of all peak period network traffic.
The decline largely reflects a shift toward streaming video, which is now the dominant use of network traffic. Netflix alone comprises almost 35 per cent of download network traffic in North America during peak periods with the other top sources of online streaming video — YouTube, Facebook, Amazon Prime, and Hulu — pushing the total to nearly 60 per cent.
The emergence of streaming video raises some interesting legal questions, particularly for users wondering whether the notice-and-notice system might apply to their streaming habits. The answer is complicated by myriad online video sources that raise different issues.
The most important sources are the authorized online video services operating in Canada such as Netflix, Shomi, CraveTV, YouTube, and streaming video that comes directly from broadcasters or content creators. These popular services, which may be subscription-based or advertiser-supported, raise few legal concerns since the streaming site has obtained permission to make the content available or made it easy for rights holders to remove it.
Closely related are authorized online video services that do not currently serve the Canadian market. These would include Hulu or Amazon Prime, along with the U.S. version of Netflix. Subscribers can often circumvent geographic blocks by using a “virtual private network” that makes it appear as if they are located in the U.S. Accessing the service may violate the terms of service, but would not result in a legal notification from the rights holder.
The most controversial sources are unauthorized streaming websites that offer free content without permission of the rights holder. Canadian copyright law is well-equipped to stop such unauthorized services if they are located in Canada since the law features provisions that can be used to shut down websites that “enable” infringement.
Those accessing the streams are unlikely to be infringing copyright, however. The law exempts temporary reproductions of copyrighted works if completed for technical reasons. Since most streaming video does not actually involve downloading a copy of the work (it merely creates a temporary copy that cannot be permanently copied), users can legitimately argue that merely watching a non-downloaded stream does not run afoul of the law.
Not only does the law give the viewer some comfort, but enforcement against individuals would in any event be exceptionally difficult. Unlike peer-to-peer downloading, in which users’ Internet addresses are publicly visible, only the online streaming site knows the address of the streaming viewer. That means that rights holders simply do not know who is watching an unauthorized stream and are therefore unable to forward notifications.
While some might see that as an invitation to stream from unauthorized sites, the data suggests that services such as Netflix constitute the overwhelming majority of online streaming activity. Should unauthorized streaming services continue to grow, however, rights holders will likely become more aggressive in targeting the sites themselves using another feature of the 2012 Canadian copyright reform package.
How Canadian law views online streaming video: Geist
Viewers accessing unauthorized streaming websites are unlikely to be infringing copyright because merely watching a non-downloaded stream does not run afoul of the law.
The misuse of Canada’s new copyright notice-and-notice system has attracted considerable media and political attention over the past week. With revelations that some rights holders are requiring Internet providers to send notifications that misstate the law in an effort to extract payments based on unproven infringement allegations, the government has acknowledged that the notices are misleading and promised to contact providers and rights holders to stop the practice.
While the launch of the copyright system has proven to be an embarrassment for Industry Minister James Moore, many Canadians are still left wondering whether the law applies to Internet video streaming, which has emerged as the most popular way to access online video.
In recent years, the use of BitTorrent and similar technologies to engage in unauthorized copying has not disappeared, but network usage indicates its importance is rapidly diminishing. Waterloo-based Sandvine recently reported that BitTorrent now comprises only 5 per cent of Internet traffic during peak periods in North America (file sharing as a whole takes up 7 per cent). That represents a massive decline since 2008, when file sharing constituted nearly one-third of all peak period network traffic.
The decline largely reflects a shift toward streaming video, which is now the dominant use of network traffic. Netflix alone comprises almost 35 per cent of download network traffic in North America during peak periods with the other top sources of online streaming video — YouTube, Facebook, Amazon Prime, and Hulu — pushing the total to nearly 60 per cent.
The emergence of streaming video raises some interesting legal questions, particularly for users wondering whether the notice-and-notice system might apply to their streaming habits. The answer is complicated by myriad online video sources that raise different issues.
The most important sources are the authorized online video services operating in Canada such as Netflix, Shomi, CraveTV, YouTube, and streaming video that comes directly from broadcasters or content creators. These popular services, which may be subscription-based or advertiser-supported, raise few legal concerns since the streaming site has obtained permission to make the content available or made it easy for rights holders to remove it.
Closely related are authorized online video services that do not currently serve the Canadian market. These would include Hulu or Amazon Prime, along with the U.S. version of Netflix. Subscribers can often circumvent geographic blocks by using a “virtual private network” that makes it appear as if they are located in the U.S. Accessing the service may violate the terms of service, but would not result in a legal notification from the rights holder.
The most controversial sources are unauthorized streaming websites that offer free content without permission of the rights holder. Canadian copyright law is well-equipped to stop such unauthorized services if they are located in Canada since the law features provisions that can be used to shut down websites that “enable” infringement.
Those accessing the streams are unlikely to be infringing copyright, however. The law exempts temporary reproductions of copyrighted works if completed for technical reasons. Since most streaming video does not actually involve downloading a copy of the work (it merely creates a temporary copy that cannot be permanently copied), users can legitimately argue that merely watching a non-downloaded stream does not run afoul of the law.
Not only does the law give the viewer some comfort, but enforcement against individuals would in any event be exceptionally difficult. Unlike peer-to-peer downloading, in which users’ Internet addresses are publicly visible, only the online streaming site knows the address of the streaming viewer. That means that rights holders simply do not know who is watching an unauthorized stream and are therefore unable to forward notifications.
While some might see that as an invitation to stream from unauthorized sites, the data suggests that services such as Netflix constitute the overwhelming majority of online streaming activity. Should unauthorized streaming services continue to grow, however, rights holders will likely become more aggressive in targeting the sites themselves using another feature of the 2012 Canadian copyright reform package.