Here we go again, another lawsuit over Android boxes. While this is old news, it has become a bit more in the spotlight as the mega giant Super Channel is going after the Big Box stores and hoping to get customer names who purchased these devices with the intent to stream illegal content. This is a stretch for Super Channel and have already dropped several similar lawsuits but do they have validity?
Over the weekend, Global News published an article regarding the September 2019 lawsuit issued by Super Channel against 4 of the Big Box stores, Staples Canada, Best Buy Canada, London Drugs, and Canada Computers along with manufacturers and suppliers of these Android boxes. And, included within this lawsuit, Super Channel is demanding that retailers reveal the names of customers who purchased such boxes. Ludicrous! But, we will get to that in a minute.
If you read my post back in December, Cutting The Cord In Canada, you learned a bit about what is going on with these Android boxes and how many are turning to streaming illegal content due to the outrageous costs of TV services here in Canada. Streaming Piracy is becoming quite prevalent these days and it is not surprising as to why. The costs of Cable, Satellite and IPTV by the major providers has seriously gotten out of hand. Once people are learning they can get even better service and even more content than what the monopoly providers can offer...it's been a no-brainer to switch even though its on the shady side of the law.
While yes, it can be argued that streaming this way is illegal, this lawsuit is absolutely ridiculous. Super Channel is reporting that they sent in secret shoppers into these stores to question about buying different Android boxes and found that employees were actually informing these "shoppers" on the illegal capabilities of these boxes. However, in each scenario, the staff did inform them that using it that way would be illegal. It's not like they were hiding that fact. It is up to the end users to decide if they want to purchase illegal content. However, the devices' purpose is not for illegal use even though Super Channel, amongst others, are claiming they are sold for that very reason.
These Android boxes are designed to provide users, without Smart TV's, or enhance those with Smart TV's, the ability to organize owned media and stream services such as Netflix, You Tube, Hulu, Disney Plus along with streaming music services as well. And it is conveniently put together on an Android based OS, similar to mobile phones, so that it is an all-in-one offering. In no way are these devices illegal. Yet because they have the capability to connect to the internet and offer the ability to load open-source software, they have the potential to run any internet-grabbing streaming services, including those that are pirated. Just like your Android phone can. Are they going to ban Android phones too? Going after the Box stores and manufacturers of these devices is absolutely ridiculous and a complete waste of time. The only merit of a law suit would be against the providers that are reselling illegal content streams. End of story.
Super Channel is arguing that pre-loaded software on these devices give the ability for users to stream illegal content. While they do have pre-loaded software for legitimate source streaming, the developers of the software and/or devices, cannot control if the software is used for illegal content. They are designed for media streaming and cannot distinguish between legal and illegal content. And, for Super Channel to demand the release of customer names from the Big Box stores that purchased these devices so they can go after those individuals is even more insane.
This lawsuit is going to go nowhere. And yet again, Super Channel will have to withdraw the suit as they have no grounds with going down this road. The only chance of fighting this type of streaming piracy is to go after the providers that are offering this content to subscribers illegally. But with the extremely exaggerated costs from legal providers, streaming piracy is going to be around and is going to be around to stay. If one way is taken down, another arises - it's a never ending game. And people are sick of being taken advantage of with these inflated costs and will continue to illegally stream so as not to support the monopolies.
One mentioned software in the lawsuit is the infamous KODI. This software is an all-in-one software to organize all of your media content, owned or on the cloud. And it is extremely customizable with different themes and technical controls unlike anything else on the market. It is FULLY LEGAL software. KODI has gotten a horrible stigma attached to it as piracy software. It was never designed as an illegal content software. As it is an Open Source software, developers have made plug-ins and further enhancement add-ons to this software that then give the ability to stream legal and illegal content. While Super Channel argues that KODI is an illegal software as this is what its main use is, they are entirely mistaken. Users have taken the software a step further and made this a possibility - The developers of KODI never designed it for this illegal purpose nor support any illegal action that an end user takes with it.
Recently, we needed to change our modem as it was several years old. Of course, good ol' Rogers reconfigured our plan and gave us basic Ignite TV (IPTV) for no charge. I didn't complain as we got faster unlimited internet at a cheaper price. I had not interest in the Ignite TV offering but as it was free, I hooked it up anyway. It was pretty sad. The basic channels they provide, don't even include all the free, over-the-air channels you can receive with an antennae! Really? You get about 30 channels, some of which are useless to us as they are non-english channels which therefore pretty much gives us City TV, Global and the 3 big US networks. I can receive more channels for free using an HDTV antennae! And if you want to add big channels like Discovery, A&E, local channels and others... it's big money of $200 on a monthly basis for 170 channels and your internet. I disconnected the device and put it in a drawer. LOL
I don't blame anyone for going the illegal route to get their thousands of channels, from around the globe, for $10-$20 a month. And, done through a VPN, your privacy is 100%. Nobody, not even your provider, knows what you are streaming. It is sad how much the monopolies take advantage of people. Even just to have internet, which is considered an essential service now, Canadians pay through the nose to be able to have a bare minimum service. It will be amusing to see where this lawsuit is headed. It's entirely ridiculous for them to be even trying to go after the Android box manufacturers, suppliers or Big Box stores. The only valid lawsuit they would possibly have is by going after the service providers that sell illegal content. That would be technically justified. But, in actual fact, the answer to putting an end to illegal streaming piracy, is for the monopolies to make it affordable to everyone. Look at Disney plus which will soon be bringing Hulu into the Canadian offering. $12.99 for all that is damn reasonable. If Canada would allow Live TV streaming for a similar reasonable price instead of raping everyone's wallets for everything it has, then we really wouldn't be hearing about all this stupid lawsuit nonsense. But that's just not the world we live in is it? Greed and money is all that matter. At least, that's my point of vue!
Comentarios